Quote:
Originally Posted by micpringle
How very current! 
Like I say, I appreciate it’s no guarantee of success, but I regularly see games where an opponent with a tactical deficit—such as SJS above—wins, and games where the advantage is minimal-to-non-existent ending up high scoring such as 7-1, 6-2 etc.
I appreciate breakdowns, bad goals, and freak results happen but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule. I’m finding more and more that the TA really doesn’t give you any legitimate indication of how a game will pan out, and therefore I’m questioning whether it’s really worth spending the time pre-game, each game setting the countering roles. |
Perhaps my perspective could help, since this took me some time to get my head around this. I came to realize that tactical advantage was one part of the overall equation to in-game success. I think tactical advantage is often misunderstood. Tactical advantage doesn't translate into on-ice superiority. Just because a team has a tactical advantage doesn't mean they have "COMPLETE" advantage during the game. In fact, I believe there are a number of factors, tactics only being one, that could determine on-ice superiority.
In quoting the FHM4 manual....."A team that holds the tactical advantage is successfully imposing their playing style on the game, and, while play is underway, will have all of their players receive additional attribute bonuses for up to three player attributes"...."The team that doesn't hold the tactical advantage suffers the opposite effect"...."The relative degree of the tactical advantage is considered when deciding how many bonuses or penalties to award. A wide disparity between the two team's tactical effectiveness means three attributes will be affected, a narrower one will only mean one bonus or penalty."
OK, now taking what the manual says from the quotes above, I have come to the conclusion that basically if you have tactical advantage your players are getting attribute bonuses, in one, two, or possibly three categories. So, if I have a passing oriented tactic and hold a slight tactical advantage, then my players would receive a bonus for passing. A player with passing rated as 10 might go to 11. Perhaps the opposing team player goes from 17 down to 14. Yes tactical advantaged helped the one team, but not enough to overcome the raw attribute advantage. Even after the awarded tactical bonuses, the opposing team still wins out by have an attribute rated as 14 compared to my player's attribute at 11.
What you can begin to see is that tactical advantage is helpful and it provides a bonus, but the raw skill ratings will still have a big influence. If I'm playing against a team with great talent - i.e. high skill ratings - even if my team holds the tactical advantage but is generally the weaker team in raw skill, that advantage may not provide enough bonus to overcome their relative lack of skill talent compared to the other team. Adding a few bonus points onto one, two or three ratings will help, but it certainly won't guarantee that my team will play with more talent.
I believe in-fact, that FHM4 has gotten this very right. A poorly skilled team can be helped with great coaching, strategy and tactics, but that may not be enough to overcome their raw talent deficit. Likewise, a team may be poorly coached and not have the tactical advantage but if it's got great talent and raw skill, it still may hold the on-ice advantage. Coaching and tactics can help, but only on the margins....at some point raw talent will win out as well.
I am not certain my perspective is 100% accurate as to how FHM4 works, but this is what I believe based on my reading of the manual. If Jeff or someone from FHM4 could verify or elaborate, that might be helpful.