[Automated Substitutions]

I already did that!

It's like going into nandos and ordering butterfly chicken, and when they bring it, they also bring you some horrible rice you didn't order.  And you say, 'wait, I don't want rice.'  And they say, 'Dude, it's part of our plan for your meal that if you have butterfly chicken, you have rice as well.  We introduced this so that you don't have to think for yourself about your side orders.'

I'd go to KFC!

And look how KFC have bounced back from #ChickenGate!  Meanwhile, nandos are, IDK, something bad. 

[Automated Substitutions]

Yes, but automated substitutions.  Just no.  

I just want to be able to brief my players on how we're going to manage the match, for it to have an effect on the game, and for me to be able to make my own substitutions. 

It's like Pizza Hut telling me I can have a deep pan pepperoni, but I've got to have salad not garlic bread, and they get to choose whether I have dessert.  

I'd go to to Pizza Express!

Just look how Pizza Hut are in decline, and look how Pizza Express are so successful you can buy their pizzas in a supermarket.  Although, if you order home delivery, they might send you a tin of beans instead. 

 

[Automated Substitutions]

I think the issue with too much complexity in potential match plans of the type I describe could be handled pretty easily.  You see, you don't necessarily have to include EVERY SINGLE possibility in your match plan.  It should work in a way that after a certain point, trying to plan for too many eventualities would actually decrease any bonus to your tactical effectiveness because the players would be confused.  The amount of instructions your team can comfortably absorb without confusion would be a secret / hidden figure based on the intelligence of the squad.  So, you'd have to kind of learn what works and what doesn't by trial, error and experience, like in real life.   

The whole drive behind what I'm suggesting is simply based on how it works in the real world.  In the real world, managers DO give their players advance instructions on how they plan to manage a match; instructions that cover the things that are currently held in 'match plans' on FM rather than within 'tactical briefings':  Things like playing defensively unless we go behind, and so on.  It helps the players get their heads around how to achieve the objective in a match. Managers that give too much, over-detailed instruction risk confusing and demotivating their players.  Managers who don't brief their players risk alienating those players.  Managers who share their plans and then fail to follow through risk being seen as incompetent or (in rare cases, as discussed above) may be seen as tactical visionaries.   

If Sports Interactive wants to develop and improve the immersive and simulation parts of Football Manager, they've got to address things like this.  

Instead, they have given us pre-match tactical briefings that don't allow finer details of match management, and Match Plans that do allow that level of detail, but only if you're prepared to let things like substitutions become automatic.  It's like Starbucks telling me I can have coffee with milk, or coffee with sugar, but I can't have both milk AND sugar.  I'd go to Costa!  SI have pretty much cornered the market with football Management games just now, but look how Costa outmanoeuvred and overtook Starbucks in the UK.  SI need to wake up and smell the coffee!

I've run out of caffeine-based metaphors now.         

[Automated Substitutions]

I accept the manual says the match plan will be carried out by the assistant manager, but like you say, it doesn't mention automated subs.  

Basically, I don't think SI have thought this through very well.  The pre-match briefing doesn't offer the options that match plans do.  Maybe SI should look at this for next year's game.  I think it's reasonable to be able to brief players in advance how you will approach 'game management' for any given match; how you plan to tweak your tactics in light of whatever circumstances come up in the match; at what point you will switch from a positive to a defensive mentality, or vice versa etc.  This is what real life managers do without asking their assistant manager to take control of substitutions for them.  It boggles my mind that there is even a debate on this. 

Match plans as they currently work on FM may be about automation for gamers who can't be arsed with the actual matches, but it has raised two problems.  One: it hasn't been explained well (I refer you back to the manual).  Two: It has dangled the carrot of being able to discuss game (match) management with your players, but then slapped you with the stick of automated substitutions if you implement the discussed plan.  

If SI do introduce a game element in which you can discuss all the finer points of how you will manage a match, the question is how should it affect gameplay.  I know a bit about game design, and the golden rule is nothing goes in as window dressing - every element of play must affect the game.  I would suggest that discussing a match plan with your players should add a benefit to your tactical effectiveness... as long as you stick to your plan.  If you don't stick to your plan (IE you manually override your match plan), then it should incur a penalty on your tactical effectiveness in the match (reflecting that the players are confused), and should result in the players demanding an explanation afterwards, or losing faith in your managerial ability.

As an added extra, you could have occasional situations where you override a match plan because something completely unexpected happened that could not be planned for.  In this case, it could be tactical genius, meaning you actually get an increase in your tactical effectiveness, and the players afterward praise your sheer genius. 

   

[Automated Substitutions]

I appreciate the input and discussion.  

Like I said (somewhere) earlier though, in real life managers will set up instructions for certain scenarios, but not expect god (or their AM) to make subs for them. This is where SI are missing a trick. I would love to be able to set up match plans, include them in a tactical briefing thereby prepping the players for how we will manage the match, but keep control of substitutions.  It seems so obvious, I cannot understand why SI would have thought automation was a good idea.  

[Automated Substitutions]

Hmm.  Well I've attached a screenshot of the Match Plans part of the manual, and it doesn't say anything about automated substitutions, so I'm taking the position that this is a badly thought out area of game design, poorly communicated to the paying gamers, and is an opportunity missed. 

[Automated Substitutions]

Wow.  somehow I've completely missed that.  And misunderstood that aspect of the game.  Still, considering what I thought it was for, I think SI have missed a trick here.  If there was an option for creating match plans in which substitutions were not automated, it would more accurately reflect real life, and is something I would use.  But thanks for letting me know about this.  

[Automated Substitutions]

Hmm.  Is that what Match Plans are really for?  I thought it was the equivalent of the instructions you give to a team about how to handle a match.  I know pro managers do this kind of thing.  And when I used to run a Sunday League side in real life, we had a set of match plan instructions we used for every match, and then we'd add tweaks for certain matches.  But standing instructions were things like: For the first ten minutes of every match, we'd play long ball.  If we were behind in the second half, we'd go full kitchen sink.  If we were winning in last ten minutes, we'd pull everybody back, and shut up shop. Pro managers might be a bit more complex than that, but the principle remains the same.  And yet never when I was running my team, did I ask 'god' to make my substitutions for me, and I'm pretty sure Pep Guardiola doesn't either.  I think SI need to clarify the issue.    

[Automated Substitutions]

Okay, I raised this initially in the bugs forum.  I was told it wasn't a bug, but an intentional feature of the game.  I'm talking about how automatic substitutions are made for you when you are using a 'match plan'.  I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's thoughts about this.  

I set up a match plan that would change elements of my tactics depending on whether I was drawing, losing or winning at certain points in the match.  But I find substitutions occurring on my team, completely out of my control.  The SI person who responded to my report of this as a bug (the thread now seems to have been deleted) said it was an intentional feature, to make sure correct players were in positions when the match plan changed my formation.  But there are a couple of problems with this explanation:

1. My match plan did not involve a change of formation, just a change of mentality and some player duties. 

2. Regardless of whether or not a formation change occurred as a result of a match plan, do we really want a management game to take control of our own substitutions?  Really?  Is it only me that finds this odd and unacceptable? 

Thoughts, anyone?