I have a couple ideas.

* more variation in BRBs, but a cap in how many you can have on a team (there's no reason for every team to not have all 6 BRBs each season, so there's really not much of a difference they make if every team has one). If we had maybe 2 or 3 more types of BRBs, but then capped the max each season at, say, 5 - it would force teams to choose and strategize, adding variety to the leagues. 

* a simple strategic addition... we have loaded FW line, or OST as the 2 main strategies. I don't really see PFD really ever helping, but it is also a strategy. I find myself wishing for some of the strategic options of MSWL, but having it somehow fit into the simple and straightforward nature of MSWL U.  

* Poochie.

I’d put a maximum limit on the GK and SW skill levels. In my opinion the challenge in United is to employ the formation against your opponent’s predicted formation that you think will gain you more shots than your opponent. It is frustrating to achieve such an objective only to be thwarted by big GK/SW barriers. My suggestion would be that GK and SW skill levels be capped at 15.

I dont know if we need anything. However if we do a change ,I agree with Rob that it should be something that adds to the strategy options. Of course with a reward and cost element.

I seem to remember that the initial united had a feature where a player could be seasoned to become a multi position player if he played a certain amount of games at a different position to what he was. I  dont really know if this would add to the game, but maybe we could go back to the original rules and explore that idea.

I think the guys who invented this games were genius,despite not living in a computer age, so I always preffer looking at their ideas as I know they were really careful about balancing their innovations to not let any change throw the game out of kilter.

Firstly I love the game so the need for change is mininmal, but here are some thoughts

I like the BRB with more variety but still limited to six,

I am in 2 minds about Multipos.  I like the idea, but makes the poker side of team selection less predictable and takes away some of the team selection thought process.

I think Stewart has it that it should easier to score, particulalry in the latter stages of the season when you often face SL23 keepers.  The effectiveness of keepers should be an upside down hockey stick of effectiveness, ie SL23 is still better than SL22, but the improvement is not as great as going from SL10 to SL11.    Having 50 shots and not scoring can be very frustrating.

Also Rob has another good point a more effective measure of countering a loaded FW line.  You can blank teams with a heavy DF line, but this blunts your own attacks. (also make the DF shot to 1/3 always) -  Maybe a midfield stategy that gives a shot to SL difference of 0.75/1, but halves the MF total SL effectivness for defending. You could both get and lose shots in the MF area.

PFD, Hardness and HA to improve slightly through the season to adjust for improving team strengths

I don't know that much needs to change, but one thing I have never understood is how a team with no attacks can still be awarded a PK?

I'll speak on the other side of GK issue. I like the fact that the GK's can, on occasion have great games. I'm not a fan of seeing 80SL on the frontline simply overpowering the GK. That's not strategy. That's bullying. :-)

One thing I might like to see is the ability to pull up old saved lineups...but not a big deal. 

Far too early in my MWSL career for me to know what might improve the game, but happy to share a couple of things I thought worked well in other United games:

* Multipositions - I always thought this added an extra dimension of strategic choice, I'd often end up with a squad where all the outfield players were UT.

* Lower coaching costs for older players - I seem to recall this was a feature of Striker but I can't remember quite how it worked in practice. Others who played more recently might recall.

* Option to draft a player for relegated / bottom of the league teams - definitely helped with the rebuilding process

I don't actually think anything needs to be changed - it's not a perfect game, but it's reasonably balanced and relatively predictable. I'd like to see an additional tactic apart from OST and play for a draw, probably a counterattack, but this would need to be really carefully implemented. I don't mind the big GK or SW numbers either as those are the deterrent to the massive numbers of shots which can be generated in these sorts of matches.

Take away the ability to strengthen the gk and sw from having additional levels added ie gpp and hardness 

Nearly at the end of my first season now, so feel more able to comment. Overall, I agree with John. I don't think anything needs to change. The game feels challenging and well balanced and I feel like I've only just scratched the surface of all the tactical and strategic possibilities on offer. It's a great game and really enjoyable (even when my team fails to convert 47 attacks into even a single goal...twice - not that I'm bitter)

if you were going to push me for one thing, I'd suggest considering scrapping automatic promotion for finishing 3rd and relegation for 6th and replace it with play-off between the two - which I've seen work really well in other United leagues. The main benefit is that it keeps more excitement going for more teams going into the final league session. For example, this year, under the current system, all three teams at the bottom of D1 have been relegated and have only pride to play for. If 6th provided a potential escape route through a play off, all three would still have something to fight for. Slightly less true for Oldham, but recent results suggest Tim may have been resigned to relegation a while back and been preparing for next year because the gap with 5th got too great.  As 6th has never been out of his reach, a possible play off might have led to a different approach. D2 is so tight this year that I'm not sure you could increase the tension too much by adding a play off, but it would give Carlisle something more than just a miracle to play for this session. In D3, I'm already promoted in 2nd so can just throw everything at a title charge. But if dropping below Leicester in third meant a play off rather an automatic promotion, I'd have to think more carefully about my tactics while Hazel might also have to balance securing the play off spot versus attempting to secure the second promotion spot.

You'd obviously need another pre-ageing session to incorporate the play offs, which I presume wouldn't be too onerous to slot in. The format could be two game, home and away, or a single game at a neutral venue or, my favourite, a single game at the home of the team that came third - this would be to reflect that they're 'losing out' on the automatic promotion they currently gain, while the team that comes 6th is gaining a lifeline. I'd presume you wouldn't want to allow play off teams to coach or use a Youth Coach in the extra session but if they wanted to play a SB or APP that's probably their choice.

Sorry, that ended up much longer than planned!

That would all make far more sense if I'd said 8th not 6th.....

Maybe put in a three point line for far away shots.

I would like to limit the max SL for the 3 non youths in youth games.

If this is limited to say SL 10 it brings in another dimenson to the youth cup tactics.

Basically just now to win YC the winning tactic is get a massive GK hit him with GPP and win on penalties.

Introducing a SL cap should give some tactical life to the YC.

Will players train up 2 GK's ? a SL 15/16 for all other games plus a SL 10 GK just for youth cup ??

A more str8ngent formula for auctions so each time there was at least one position of each type available so 1 gk 1 sw 2 df 2 mf 2fw as an example 

i Get frustrated when you can't obtain a certain position 

I tend to agree with James's comment on the Youth Cup. Either a cap on SL, or only allowing a max of Age I players in the cup? 

I'd be interested in a Red Card Appeals Officer BRB option. Perhaps with a declining percentage chance of overturning a suspension dependent on how many hardness points were used.  Would help mitigate the bad luck associated with zero hardness sending offs (did I mention I have had three this season to date) and might encourage a bit more use of clogging as a tactical option.

Should add, I agree with James that having extra BRB options but still limiting the roster to six would. A new tactical dimension.

I think Roger's playoff idea is really interesting. I am not sure exactly how it would work, but with my familiarity/reference point being 99% American sports, I can say some cool things have been done to maintain interest at all sorts of spots in the standings. As an example, as much as I'm a purist for old school baseball, the new three game wildcards -- which admitted two more teams to the playoffs in each league -- have been supe fun this year..

In his Rob vs Holden blog post Al mentions not having a team playing two home or two away league games in the same session. Is this a desired thing? Brentford started off with two home games (tough opposition to be fair) but in general this could be seen to be an advantage due to home bonus giving a better chance for more CP.

In TMVL we don't have this problem but we also don't simply have a team playing the other 9 teams (as it would be for United) then reversing the fixtures in the same order. You might play a team in week 2 and again in week 5 rather than week 6 for instance. You will probably have played some teams twice before playing 1 or 2 teams for the first time.