[Nithoniniel]

EDIT: Restructured the post for better clarity.

I really like what you are trying to achieve with this.

My initial reaction is that it's far too restrictive in many ways. I jumped into a game and tried to replicate the tactical setup of the Toronto Maple Leafs, but for the longest time I didn't even get close. Only after spending a ton of time in a trial-and-error testing of different tactics did I manage this, and there was still a bunch of very obvious problems. The issue that stared me right in the face was that it was very cumbersome. As I said, I basically had to resort to trial-and-error to find tactics that gave me the kind of roles I was looking for.

The root of the problem is that the tactics you choose is way too quick to tell you how to use your lines. They should be an overall system for how you go about your business with the puck, and without it. Instead I often get told that my Soviet-inspired tactic forces my third line to be a shutdown line with two defensive-minded forwards and an enforcer, as an example. It's the same with the pairings. I can totally see why a certain tactic might tell me that I'll have an offensive D-man on every pairing, but I can't see why it would tell me that the first pairing will have two offensive guys, the second pairing will have balance, and the third pairing will have two shutdown guys. That should be up to the player.

What I think is missing is the ability to complement the overall tactic by designating specific line roles. I might for example want a cycling system with two scoring lines, a shutdown line and energy line, or I could want the same cycling system with three scoring lines and a shutdown line (similar to Chicago setup). Both options fit under the cycling tactic, but give you more options on how to handle the lines without feeling handcuffed.

That would also keep the overall tactic limited to what it should effect, and gives you more tactical depth. The game often tries to push me into having the old-fashioned top six, shutdown line and energy fourth line setup, but most of the league uses three scoring lines noawayds.

You'd get a three-layered system:

1) The overall tactics that exist now. Determines overall style of play.
2) Line roles and designations. Examples would be a matchup line (Toews-type line), scoring line (Kane-type line), Shutdown line (Krüger-line) and energy line (The archetypical bottom six line)
3) Based on the two first steps, you get individual roles. A shutdown line in a Soviet-inspired system might look different from one in a more typical north american system. The over-arching theme will be the choice in step 1, with modification for deployment from step 2.

Connected to this is something that really need to change. In several tactics, including some of the Soviet-inspired ones, I get forced to have an enforcer on the third line. I barely know any system or team that actually uses one that high in the lineup. It's almost an extinct role as it is, and in the cases it's being used it's almost always on the fourth line. That it's harder to find a system that actually uses three scoring lines, like almost every NHL team does nowadays, than it is to find one with enforcers on a top nine role is absolutely perplexing.

The roles on the PP gets a bit confusing as well. I get players that get designated with having a two-way forward role, but that's not exactly a useful role on a powerplay. Most systems utilize a quarterback, point shooters, shooters from the boards, puck retrievers and screeners as roles.

Haven't checked out the PK systems yet, but I might add some feedback on them here.