ï»I firmly believe that the guys who invented this game understood exactly what they were doing.Changing the rules based on a majority decision of a bunch of us who do not really understand the game as fully as the inventors did does not really make sense.

ï»As we have United and United 2 should we not at the most tweak one game whilst leaving the other as it is in case  the changes reduce the playability/fun levels of the game.

i play in a few united league postally with variations and they have lone striker when the defence can play four times the level of the forward, or at least that is what my memory is telling me, but must investigate further, but anything to change things up is good by me, just playing the same old 20 20 60 regime doesnt do it for me, so bring on the changes.

United is hear to evolve and the original inventor Alan Parr has made many changes along the road.

I agree with Alon, but not entirely - I would like to see the game evolve where different teams have different tactical options. I'm not sure that is possible, but even so, if we're going to tweak, it should not be here.

You could always max the number of attacks each area can generate...

I do not like maxing the number of attacks... it penalizes managers who put out great lineups - and then you have the random number generator come along and throw 1 or 2 lucky rolls the other team's way, and bam, that maxed-attack concept becomes a major penalty instead of just a level-setter.

Agree with Rob on this, do NOT max attacks.

I still think, and I will admit wrongly so, that this should be addressed from the opponent's side.  I think the 1 Sw 2 Df 2 Mf, aka the 5 Fw, lineup should have THEIR defense impacted or their opponent's off target% improved.  A high SL Sw stops an extraordinary amounts of shots and then also benefits from off target % after the Sw calculation.  Opponent's off target should be improved to 25% - this would "reflect" that team's ideology that "defense doesn't matter".  Why should that affect a characteristic of offense you might ask?  Well, I think any footballer could have an off target of nearly 0% if not "bothered" by a defensive player... with less defense around, the off target % lowers.  I also agree with the 4:1 Df:Fw ratio. I also think a team should be allowed to play one Mf!  Yup, I said it.  4:1 ratio for Df:Mf but maintain the 3:1 for Fw:Mf  Lots written here but I think it is only 5 additional checks for [all] my suggestions

Rob B. brings up an interesting side topic as an idea...

What if off-target percentage were directly proportional to the # of defenders playing?  Sweeper doesn't count, since they get their own stop % check.  10% per Df would mean a base off-target chance between 20% and 50% depending on the lineup, before adding % for goals scored.  If that's too much variation, or too easy for any team to play for a draw with, you could reduce to 15% base + 5% per Df (25%-40%), or any other variant until the #'s look good.  To heighten the impact, and not also penalize a 2-5-2 OST lineup, you could include MF/2 in those numbers.

The end result of this line of thought is that if a team isn't bothering to play defense because the greatest numerical advantage outside a top Gk (as measured by increase in odds of winning a match per CP spent in team development) is exploitable through the 1:1 scoring chance ratio of the forwards, then the other team should have an easier time getting shots on goal because there aren't as many defenders getting in the way.

Interesting thought, but do we have to be careful we don't push it too far so that 4-2-4 becomes the norm, the SW not being needed because the DF and MF players make up for that with an off target percentage increase.

We had a three different survey questions and then now one additional website poll on the topic of alternatives to the big Fw line which seems to be the primary tactic teams currently use to earn titles.  The idea was to discuss and vote on options/approaches to provide methods to better counteract the above Big Fw line approach.

The voting on this poll which was something of a summary of the best alternative approaches was:

Make a change - 20 (74%)

Make no change - 7 (26%)

There's a variety of ideas on how to approach this.  I read through all of them and my approach is to try to balance alternate strategies/tactics with simplicity

Based on that, while I initially liked the 2:1 idea I can see where it could be a little restrictive.

We're about to start seasons 4 and 14 for U2 and U1 respectively.

The season 5/15 rule changes will be:

a) A team must have a minimum of 1 Fw (rather than the current minimum of 2)

b) A team's Df area may not exceed 4 times the team's Fw area (rather than the current three times maximum)

c) A team's Fw area may not exceed 3 times the team's Df area (this is the current rule and will not change)

I like that the, well 'a', change is being instituted here.   The change itself is fine too.  However, will anyone use it?  Even with 4+ Df - while it may offer a way to slow down the 5+ Fw line - won't the offense be anemic?  The following is not a realistic array of players but the net result might be realistic: 

A: (14), (14), (14 + 14), (14 + 14), (14+14+14+14 +14)

vs.

B: (13), (13), (13 + 13 +13 +13 +13), (13 +13 + 13), (13*)

(I guess I am assuming Week 1 Cup Match as there is no Home bonus nor fitness yet.)  The number of attacks should be:

A: 5 + 0/2 + *15/3 = 10- attacks going up against a SL 13 Sw [and Gk]

B: 0 + 11/2 + 0/3 = 6 attacks going up against a SL  14 Sw [and Gk]

So a team that is a full point lower in T-11 *DOES* seem to have a fighting chance with the new rule...

IF it were allowing 5:1 for Df:Fw but at 4:1 where do you put your "5th Df"??  T-11 of 14 and 13 are actually rather high for Week 1 but I just wanted the math to be easy.  Maybe this is too extreme of an example?  I do not think so.  I think it will be tough for someone to choose to enter a 1 Fw lineup.  *One can use GPP, HD or Home bonus to meet the requirements.  Maybe that's enough.

Altering team B above by just making 1 Df SL 12 and 1 Fw SL 14 (only need +2 to satisfy 4:1 rule)... team A now has 6 + 0/2 + 12/3 = 10 attacks

A: (11), (11), (11 + 11), (11+ 11), (11+11+11+11+11) 

vs. 

B: (11), (10), (11 + 11 +10 +10 +10), (11 +10 + 10), (11*)

(I guess I am assuming Week 1 Cup Match as there is no Home bonus nor fitness yet.)  The number of attacks should be:

A: 3, 0/2, 9/3 = 6 attacks going up against a SL 13 Sw [and Gk]

B: 0, 9/2, 0/3 = 5 attacks going up against a SL 14 Sw [and Gk]

#@$%^!  This is what Alon was referring to about "others" messing with the game or interpreting it.  Forgot I typed it unless it makes some sense to you.

The other tactic that a coach can try is the 4-5-1 formation, with offside trap.  Provided the FW is big enough, of course.

Yes, I think we'll start seeing some more varied tactics once this rule change takes effect.