wazzaflow10

have you had a chance to play yet?

Is asking one of your CBs in a back 3 to man mark an IF and have the wingback on the opposite side mark the other a bad idea? I wouldn't want both to do it so that I still have a +1 advantage in the back. I generally think the game lacks a bit in terms of allowing you to set up effective zonal marking or coverage areas.

It feels a bit wasteful when your opponent is only playing with 1 striker but you do manage to keep possession a good bit and recycle attacks more easily. Typically I do a narrow so I can control the midfield and muddy that down a bit. Plus that just opens up space for the wingbacks. Benefit to that system is fewer moving parts to create the 3-2 build up so for me its more effective at nullifying a team that is much better than you since your players don't have to move in critical areas.

yeah you'll need an athletic left CB and DLPd to make it work for sure. I haven't had to play any of the big clubs yet. For that I have a 3-4-2-1 I think I'll employ to sit and frustrate them and hope for some counters.

PIs: LIF: Sit Narrower AMC: Pass shorter, dribble less, roam, get further forward DMCR: Dribble more, Shoot Less often IFB (for James only): Dribble wide, Cross More Often, Cross from Deep I'll often switch Sterling to the RW position and put someone slightly more creative in the IFs spot Lukaku has scored 7 goals in 4 games for me with this tactic (3,2,0,2). You should be able to switch this to the right side if you want/need. Kind of a waste using James as an IFB but Chilwell isn't as great as an IFB and the lack of left footed wingers kind of necessitates playing down the left flank this way. Putting a right footed winger out there isn't the end of the world though.

It's probably one of the issues with the IFB/LIB set up that your wide players almost have to be wingers or inverted wingers so you don't make your attack so narrow. I've had some success going about it in a slightly different manner using this AF IFs AMs Wa DLPd DMs CWBa CB BDP IFB I'm sure it's lacking a bit of solidarity down the left flank but hasn't cost me yet.

He said toffee, 16 year old, and scoring in a sentence. There's only one place to go with that one!

Do you not remember the name Wayne Rooney? (sarcasm)

@Rashidi For a 3-2 rest defense formation with an initial set up of DMd HB WBa CB CB IWBs Can you cover the flanks better by checking the stay wider when team in possession PI on your CBs? Assuming the HB goes into the middle though I vaguely remember a HB will rotate with an IWB if on the same side. If that is the case we can switch the DM and HB so the rotation occurs where we want.

Maybe its my own narrative but I've seen tired/fatigued players be a little looser in possession (poor touches/bad passes) or lose their mark a little easier (not tracking back/not in the right position). If I get a few highlights of a tired player in those scenarios I usually sub them off unless they're having a storming game or don't have a good replacement.

I played a sequence of 3 games with Chelsea the last few days that I used 3 different base formations. So you don't need peak familiarity to do well. Game 1 I used a 4-3-3 with a high intense press winning 4-0. Maybe a bit lucky as I forced 3 errors from Brighton as they built out of the back. Game 2 a 5-2-2-1 or 3-4-2-1 and drew 2-2 away against Newcastle (who's leading the league) where I sat back and countered. Should have won this one but for a injury time goal. Game 3 a 4-2-3-1 and won 4-0 again with 3 of the goals coming while using a low block/LOE and cautious mentality. Went up 1-0 after 25 mins and survived a 20 min fightback before halftime where I was perhaps lucky to not concede an equalizer. I was actually behind on xG. 2nd half though was pure dominance after the mentality/LOE switch. No shots allowed ended up being 3-1 in xG. All morphed into a 3-2-5 in some way in attack. I find the 3-2 to be the most stable unless you're expected to dominate and need an extra body in midfield to break down a low block or have world class CB's that have some pace. Also consider what roles you're expecting to make up the 3-2 or 2-3 and the tempo you're playing. Doing a 3-2 with two IWB and a HB requires time to set up in possession due to how far each player has to move to get into position. Playing fast and direct would result in your players running in and out of their starting position and never really settle. I try to minimize how many "moving parts" I have in a tactic if the goal is to play fast and direct.

I usually go by if that 6.6 is coupled with a bunch of poor passes or bad highlights. A 6.6 alone isn't enough to pull someone off - they might get a "I think you can do better" at halftime talk though. Also if they made a mistake and got down to 6.2 or something and came back up to 6.6 then obviously its just one error pulling them down. So the journey to 6.6 matters to me.

That's every online interaction in existence though. It doesn't mean the game is broken for people who are trying to play a normal, non-exploitative way. There's always been exploits or a meta theory in the game. That also exists in real life. Pep's tactics are the meta theory for most of Europe. Winning the ball higher up the pitch gives you better odds and not conceding. That's the real life "meta." Should the game make it harder to press high up the pitch either in terms of performance loss due to condition or number of injuries or attributes needed? Probably. But I don't think the problem is really that widespread unless you're trying to defeat the engine instead of the other player/AI tactic. But why play that way or play with people who want to play that way online?

Maybe we'll get a philosophy slider next year like we did for team fluidity that lets you go between positional and relational!

Sounds like it makes perfect sense. You left out someone because your squad is too big and they got upset. He might be close with a few influential players and they want to know why you left him out instead of someone else. The squad isn't always going to act rationally or agree with everything you say/do. Its part of being the manager. It's a decent suggestion though to have them suggest who you should leave out if it can still be changed. Moral of the story though is don't have so many players that you're leaving them out. Very few squads have players who aren't registered unless they're trying to get rid of them.

I'd be shocked if they left the module broken after this. I really would. I can see how you miss it initially, especially during the summer window when lots of agent offers appear. Its very strange to me that when a player "becomes available" you have 100% knowledge of them but they don't show up as scouted until that event occurs. Something is definitely happening on the back end that doesn't make it through to the UI parts of the game.

I haven't touched a long term save I had. Just been doing random saves. Actually went back to 21 for a while. @zeza Turns out all my optimism was for nothing. Most of the increase in scouted players was from my director of football scouting agent offers it seems. Almost instantaneous too. Such a strange, strange bug.

@Zachary Whyte Hey Zachary, Could you explain to me why the DOF is filing scouting reports? I don't have a focus set up for Italy but Osimen shows up in my players scouted due to Winstanley scouting him. Is there a secondary scouting mechanic?

Ok so here's a crazy thing. I went and re-verified the game files in steam. Everything came back clean though. Started a brand new game with Chelsea again. No added files or anything. Deleted all the original recruiting focuses. Set up my own in the same way you said to and I got 100 new players in a month of scouting from just two focuses in England and Spain. This is bizarre.

In the 15 odd years I've been playing via steam I don't think I've ever really seen a true gameplay hotfix. I have a hard time believing that this isn't in everyone's game. I was playing pure vanilla version and it broke. Given the number of people who come into the general discussion forum and say something I'm inclined to believe that if you pay attention to scouting you'd notice.

Makes sense. I still play 21 a lot an CMs are definitely used there. The only annoying thing is getting players who only have positional ability at CM. Not that they won't be affective at AM or DM but I feel like if a player plays CM they should either have positional abilities at either AM or DM as well depending on how they play.

There was a change in 22 or 23 I forget which where the engine required using DMs instead of CMs. So that's what the AI is doing. I don't know all of the reasons why the change was made but the tactics forum would be able to help you explain the differences. It's a single player game you play how you want. I don't use anything but formations the game comes with with minor exceptions of being down late and I'm just trying to hoof the ball up the field. But there's no single right way to play unless you're playing with others.

Last I heard the AI won't use asymmetric ones unless they are part of the selectable formations, that is correct. They don't use the off the shelf tactics presets unless it perfectly fits their style though. They'll create their own style or use a style that a researcher has given them.

typo make should be maybe

Yeah not sure this is entirely working as it should even with these adjustments. It's definitely "better" in the sense of it make works 10% of the way. None of the players that are in progress in the focus are listed in the scout priority screen. So that seems super odd to me. I also did a manual search and that returns some players. Seems like 4 a week is what they can handle when manually selecting. The whole core function just seems broken right now.