Tactical Theorems and Frameworks '07
Tactical Theorems and Frameworks '07
Introduction
In writing TT&F ’07 I have tried to combine the best of the old threads with some new theories and ideas from late testing on ’06 and the input of forum testers on the Demo. I have also added a few ‘new and untested’ bits and bobs for perusal and possible application. Despite its length, it hasn’t been too hard to compile as most of the information was already available in the old threads. I have just linked them all together, proof read and added a few new sections for possible discussion.
I have tried to restructure the format of the opening post so devotees don’t get bored reading the same old sh*te over and over again. Therefore, I have opened the thread with a run down of my assumptions and thought processes (such as they are), rather than my standard mentality guide. For newcomers this may be a bit daunting and may well frighten you away before you get to the really useful stuff, so, if you wish to get going quickly, read the disclaimer and then skip everything before Mentality Frameworks and start from there. That section explains most of the tactical settings and will get even the most lost FMer back on track.
The closing section of the thread details tactical switches required for different divisional levels alongside the bogeymen of the Second Season Slump and the 3-3-2-1-1. They are covered to some extent in the earlier sections, but I thought it worthwhile to have an instant reference guide for them as they cause so much stress. I finish off with a quick guide to Team Talks (half-time & full-time only). I have also tried to add some cross-referencing hints to make the post more reader-friendly.
Disclaimer
It needs to be taken into consideration that this opening post is based on the assumption that ’07 is an evolution of the ’06 game engine. I have had no prior access to the ’07 engine, but have had support from some that have suggesting that my theories still hold water. One obvious difference in the engine is that slider differences are more acute and thus some of these theories may need no little adaptation. Therefore, please don’t take these theories and assumptions as gospel and feel free to rewrite them if you find better alternatives.
Due to the excellent contribution of many fabulous tacticians over the last year, TT&F has developed into a tactics guide par excellence, but, it does have its limitations and pitfalls. It is extremely useful as an expansion to the tactics guide in the game manual and offers additional information and ideas for perusal. I do not think that this level of detail contained in the thread should be provided in the game manual as many will not want to follow the ‘do it by numbers’ approach to playing and would prefer to work things out on their own. If you prefer to take such an approach to playing FM, this thread may not be for you. For those that are tactically frustrated or wish to have a more detailed explanation, please read on.
Framework Assumptions
The AI
The first assumption we must make is on how the AI plays. My overriding feeling is that AI mentality is Global in its purest form i.e. there are no mentality variants and all players are on the same settings. The empirical evidence for this is observational only, but without access to source code that is all it can be. Let's look at the way the AI operates.
AI General Starting Formation
Nearly all teams have a preferred starting system. In England most play a 4-4-2, in Spain the 4-2-3-1 is popular, and in France they play a weird 4-3-2-1. We have to assume against a mid-ranked opponent the mentality of these teams will be set to low attacking at home, low defensive away. Higher ranked sides will play wider and looser at home, lower ranked will play tighter. Media games may force an opposition manager to abandon a tactical policy (I used to rule van der Gaal as he always criticised me. I responded by telling him my team was better and he sent out hyper-attacking tactics which resulted in my team flattening his.) but in general we can predict mentality and formation. We can therefore design some standard starting tactics (see Mentality Frameworks). However, we need to be aware of AI tactic switching and be ready to counter it. We also need to understand the effect of re-ranking and how that can lead to a previously formidable tactic suddenly coming unstuck.
AI Attacking Strategies
When losing, the AI often reverts to an attacking strategy between the 60 and 70 minute marks. They will begin to play wide and fast with a high mentality, with full-backs pouring forward, long-farrowed wingers (or a 4-2-4) and forwards staying up the pitch all the time. This system will offer huge amounts of space down the flanks or around their back two as they only keep the DCs back. Two ways to counter this are to focus passing down flanks to sarrowed FCs which exploits the channels or focus passing down centre with the wide men forward sarrowed to the AMR/L positions so you create a 4 on 2 situation when attacking the central defenders. Personally, I employ the sarrowed FCs solution. Defensively, forward runs should be set to rarely for FBs and a MCd/DMC (see Forward Runs & Farrows/Sarrows/Barrows/Defend Lead).
AI Defensive Strategies
The AI can revert to this much earlier in the game than it does attacking strategies. There seems to be little pattern to this with the AI going ultra-defensive anywhere after the 5th minute. It can happen after a goal but it can equally easily happen after a throw-in! The classic AI defensive strategy is the 3-3-2-1-1 but other variants are possible. This system is narrow and compact, with all 11 players looking to get behind the ball and defend their penalty area. Most of the defensive players (DCs, WBs, DMCs) will never get forward and attacks only occur via the remaining four players. This system should be countered with a wide formation that has a high percentage of forward runs. I think it should be pressing defensively to win the ball high up the pitch. The idea is to overload the box and force opposition mistakes (see Breaking Down the 3-3-2-1-1).
Re-Ranking
This is where the real fun of FM lies. There seems to be a slight re-ranking of your team after 50% of a season, with a serious re-ranking at the end of a season. This results in the AI launching different strategies against user teams and is the reason for second season slump syndrome. The mid-season re-ranking results in slightly more defensive AI set-ups which can lead to a serious drop in team performance if the system you are employing is too conservative. If you then drop some places you will be re-ranked again in the next season based on your finishing position, which allows the tactic to succeed again and the circle restarts. However, if your tactical acumen is sufficient to counter the mid-season re-rank and you finish significantly higher in the table than expected, you will face a much more defensive AI next season and must adjust your tactics accordingly. Failure to do this will result in a seriously diminished performance.
Example
I took over Juventus after a season in which they had seriously underperformed (finished 4th after being 10th and struggling when I took over). I bought one or two new players to fit my preferred formation type, but in large had the same squad. I implemented my tactical systemand played out the season. Results: Won Seria A (34-3-1), Coppa Italia (won every game) and the CL. My goal scoring was untrue, with two players scoring 20+ (reserve striker and AMC), one netting 30+ and the regular FC 60+. The defence was less impressive (0.6 a game). The following season I still won the Seria A (33-2-3) and the CL but scored considerably less. I also conceded a lot less (0.4 a game).
The conclusion to this is as follows:
1: In Season One the AI still tried to beat me and played semi-attacking systems. My tactics countered this in terms of goal scoring (high mentality FCs and AMC) and was solid enough defensively to win all but one game all season.
2: In Season Two I was re-ranked as the best team in Italy. The AI then focussed on stopping me from scoring. My defence had less to do but my attack had to work harder. I came up against the 3-3-2-1-1 almost every game (with the exception on the Milans and Roma). I was nearly always forced to play my most attacking tactic rather than swapping between them as I had done the previous season.
3: Winning the title or over performing based on current ranking results in a massive shift in AI strategy against you. It will be more defensive and you must be more attack minded to counter it (see The Second Season Slump).
Mentality
How does this all influence mentality thinking. I think it does in terms of how successful a tactic is long-term, which is something users have to take into consideration. It is all well and good getting a one-season wonder tactic but it has to be a consistent performer in a career game. The following deconstructs two extreme settings for mentality, the Rule of Two & Global Mentality (see Frameworks for an explanation of the Rule of Two).
Rule of Two Mentality
Strengths
RoT has three main advantages.
Firstly, it always keeps players high up the pitch in order to launch counters or run after clearances. The high attacking mentality of the FCs and AMC guarantees that once they get the ball they will look for attacking options. This means that it is exceptionally effective against attacking AIs as RoT tactics frequently get 3 on 2 situations near the end of the game as the AI pours forward, leaving two at the back. Any forward ball that the FCs latch on to is likely to create a good chance which, if taken, will kill off the game.
Secondly, it always has five players working together as a defensive unit. With high-pressing this counters the more defensive formations as it wins the ball quickly and high up the pitch before the opposition has a chance to reorganise itself for an attack. A quick ball back into the box often creates a good opportunity. Those that play a RoT system will be aware of how it looks in 2d, with the back 5 playing possession football between them until one of the front 5 makes a move into space. Thus, the defensive unit stays secure (mentality + pressing + d-line) <http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1519717/m/1232021662> and keeps the ball rather than playing risky forward passes (mentality). It is not particularly beautiful to watch but is highly effective.
The third advantage is that (I think) it is re-ranking proof. Because the mentalities are spilt so defensive players focus on defending and attackers on attacking it shouldn't fall down heavily against re-ranking as it counters (to an extent) both attacking and defensive AI strategies.
Weaknesses
I only see one main weakness which for me is an aesthetic one. It is next to impossible to play a convincing short-passing game as the players are too stretched out. I believe the front three should be set to short passing as they are always close together, but the rest of the team should be set to mixed/direct. I employ a staggered system of passing, following RoT, with the keeper at direct, DCs at two notches shorter, FBs to more and so on. A lot of goals are scored via direct balls form the back, rather than via intricate passing moves, but outside of aesthetics I don't see it as a major problem.
Global Mentality
Strengths
It is much easier to build than a RoT system and offers a more viable team-ethic as everybody is on the same mentality. Short passing will be easier to implement and the team is likely to play beautiful football. The team works as one unit, defending and attacking en-masse. Aesthetically it is likely to be much more pleasing than a RoT system.
Weaknesses
It is the same type of system as the AI plays therefore users aren't gaining any major advantage by playing it and player quality becomes more important. I don't think the user is getting the full benefit of in-game advantages that the RoT gives.
I think it holds water as a one season method, but may begin to fail after that. If my re-ranking theory is correct then a one-mentality tactic is likely to struggle after a major re-ranking as it is coming up against teams playing entirely different strategies which easily counter the one-mentality method. If the GM is 12 season one (leading to a 3rd place finish) it may well need to be 15 season two as the user is now coming up against more defensive AI systems.
I also think it will struggle against in-game tactical changes. I don't think it is as counter-attacking friendly as RoT when playing against a 4-2-4 for example. Let's look at mentality rules to see why.
Example
Global Mentality: DCs mentality is 10. He is much more likely to play a forward ball than his RoT counterpart (mentality 6). However, he is playing it to an FC with mentality of 10. The RoT DC plays the ball to an FC of 18 or 14 or an AMC of 16. The GM FC is likely to slow the game down and look for a safe pass rather than a quick break, whereas the RoT FCs go for goal.
For me, Global Mentality falls down here. The system tells the DCs to look for forward balls to a greater extent than the RoT, but when they do they are not used as efficiently as in RoT. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can accept that GM works with superior sides (which we all try to build) but not as a safe, season-on-season system that needs to be able to counter-attack as often as dominate.
Further Mentality Assumptions
1: Mentality as a positioning tool. It is primarily concerned with how much a player helps out with attacking or defensive duties. Thus, a DC with mentality of 6 will concentrate on defensive duties 70% of the time and look to join in/start off attacking moves 30% of the time. An FC with mentality of 18 will look to attack 90% of the time. Each player’s position reflects this, with FCs of 18 staying higher up the pitch than those of 12 and DCs of 4 staying deeper than those of 10. However, position type partially overrides mentality positioning as DCs are unlikely to leave their main positional duties and become auxiliary FCs mid-move.
2: Mentality as a risk/reward agent. It is primarily concerned with how likely a player is to make an attacking move. Thus, a DC with mentality of 6 will only make an attacking move if he judges the move as being >70% likely to succeed. An FC with a mentality of 18 will have a go even if he thinks the move has >10% chance of succeeding.
3: Mentality as a pass type indicator. It is primarily concerned with the type of pass a player will make. A DC with mentality of 6 will only play a forward ball 30% of the time. An FC with mentality of 18 will shoot/play a forward pass 90% of the time.
Although I originally planned formation frameworks with Assumption 1 in mind, I now believe Assumption 2 to be most likely. I'll try to explain why.
Mentality as a risk/reward agent has its roots in positional thinking. A player with a high attacking mentality undeniably positions himself higher up the pitch than a player in the same position with a defensive mentality. However, we have other tools to determine positioning (position types, sarrows, farrows, barrows). So, why do we need a third tool to define it? We probably don't. Yet, there is on-screen evidence that a player with a high mentality gets further up the pitch than one with low (and a high mentality FC refuses to defend, whereas a low mentality FC gets back). What is the reason for this?
I believe it is related to how mentality influences other offensive or defensive options. An FC with a mentality of 18 looks to make attacking moves 90% of the time. When he is not in possession of the ball these options will be reduced to off-the-ball moves (forward runs). It is his constant repositioning while looking for chances to make a forward run (which he does 90% of the time) that makes it look like he is further up the pitch than his lower mentality strike partner. Once he is in possession he will have the option of through balls, run with ball, long shot, or basic shot if he is close to goal. His individual instructions inform him of how often he is allowed to try each one. If long shots is rarely but through ball and run with ball high he will attempt to pull off one of those two moves assuming he thinks it has >10% chance of succeeding. If one is often and the other mixed he is 50% more likely to try the often option.
Other attributes are likely to determine his success rate. Decision making plays a major part, but teamwork, dribbling, passing, flair, creativity and finishing all have their roles. Likewise, the qualities of the player he is facing will stop many of his moves. Yet, as he has such a high mentality he will keep on trying them.
Players with low mentalities obviously look at the risk/reward situation in a different way and thus don't play attacking balls unless the reward factor heavily outweighs the risk.
So, how to use this?
It is obviously a bad idea to play DCs with too high a mentality (give away the ball too easily with stupid forward passes) or too low (will dawdle on the ball and refuse to play forward balls until put under pressure from pressing attackers). A striker with low mentality will never take on half-chances. Hence, RoT seems the way to go. it balances the system with DCs only playing forward balls when reward outweighs risk, FCs looking to create/shoot most of the time with the midfield being somewhere in the middle.
In terms of how to combine attacking tools (long shots, through balls, crosses, forward runs, run with ball) with the mentality option logic has to rule. DCs shouldn't cross the ball, make forward runs, run with ball or take many long shots as their primary job is to defend. The position tool overrides other instructions so they will stay back unless forward runs is ticked. If it is they will join attacking moves as long as they believe they have a >70% chance of coming off. That percentage is too dangerous for me (as 3 out of 10 times I will be a man short at the back when counter-attacked) so I restrict their attacking options to through balls. If they have good decision making and passing skills then through balls are a must (combined with mixed/direct passing) as they will hit them only when they believe they have a >70% chance of succeeding. Such a ball can tear a defence apart.
The further up the pitch the player plays (or the wider his role) the more likely he will be able to make attacking chances (less risk of interception, blocks etc). Each level of mentality in a RoT system should be given more attacking tools depending on their attributes. Therefore all players should have some through balls, crossing, run with ball, long shots optioned. DMCs should mainly concentrate on long shots and through balls. Wide players can cross, run with ball, play through balls but not make many long shots as angles will be against them. AMCs should look for through balls primarily but also have long shots and run with ball available. FCs can do everything.
In short, mentality is the tool that informs players of risk/reward and combines with decision making to construct attacking moves. Additional tools to be taken into consideration are player attributes and player instructions. A logical combination of all three will determine how successful a tactic will become.
Alıntılı Yanıtla
Originally Posted by hakan sükürü
