rainsilent

So the primary issues are that your checking line only has 1 decent checking type player and you have no two way defenders. Never mind the role that you set for your players. Basically you got players trying to do things that they aren't good at doing. Also all of your defensemen are defensive defensemen. You can set them to match line but stay at home would likely be best for most if not all of them. Only one of your forwards makes for a suitable player on a checking line so scrap the checking line for a two way line and adjust players as necessary.
 
Finally team tactics wise set it to what you want it to be. The players will develop into the tactics that you choose. Just know that it may take time to do. Also you don't necessarily need a 7th defender however seeing as how most of your defenders have relatively low endurance ratings if you find your defenders getting tired a lot it may be an option worth exploring. That said only playing 1 on each PP would almost do the same thing as it will actively cut down the amount of time on ice the defenders are getting and that alone may be enough.

To add on to above:
 
Dynamic is good for high skilled defenders that can do it all as well as two way. Think the elite defensemen in the modern game. This set up is basically giving them the green light to do whatever they think is best at any time.
 
I would use match line if your team plays a specific style a la very physical and aggressive, strong puck play, what have you and you have the defenders to match that style or alternately you have high skilled do everything defenders and you want them to match the play of the forward line they are playing with.

Point number one has been addressed. However it will take time to see the results of the solution take effect. Patience here would be appreciated.
 
Point two was something debated over when "minor leagues" were created. It was decided not to go that route for 2 main reasons. First it removed any real management role from lower league teams as they would just be given the extra players from leagues above and actual signing and maintaining their own players was more or less absent with this idea. Second calling the players up would suddenly mean that the lower league team is losing a player on their team just out of the blue with nothing the manager can do. Not an ideal thing to be dealing with when running a team to say the least. Also there are other problems with your given idea. Chiefly the complications behind it. For example why should a team that sent a player down to develop have to then match an offer to keep the player just because the lower league team that got them when they were sent down then promoted? The player is already under contract to that team and should remain so until they are either traded or the contract ends. That of course does not include the waiver system that is being worked on to be included but that still doesn't come into play.
 
The third idea has a major issue. Every league has their cap and contract system set at a certain percentage of the league above. This allows the simplest transition of player salaries from one league to the next should a team either promote or a player be traded. The third idea, and since it is an extension of the second even the second idea, just wouldn't work in the current system from how I understand it. Something would need a major rework.
 
The IHL and IIHL idea would just create a mess out of a currently rather streamlined system currently in place. In terms of new players joining there are two solutions. First would be the creation of a new game world and second would be a more strict enforcement of the fact that managers should only have 1 profile to create more room for new players without creating new game worlds. Let me go back to and explain the first part. The way that the leagues are currently set up is the foundation of everything in the game world. The draft, the way contracts work, everything. Breaking it up in the way you suggested means that most everything would have to be reworked from the ground up. The current system works as intended. It may not be the perfect system in your mind but changing these game worlds now in that manner just isn't likely going to happen. If Anders decides to try to create one massive game world for each speed type with a massive ladder tree then your idea would most definitely come to the forefront. However until that happens how things are now will likely remain how things will continue to be. It is a different solution to the same problem with no absolute right or wrong answer to it.
 
Finally I suggested getting rid of center and forward for just forward way back in beta. Anders wanted to keep some sort of distinction between a center and a winger though and thus kept it which is fine for the game.

Updated the first post. Age from 18 skaters + starting goalie.

Average age would be an interesting add.

If you remove the extra players that I have signed (young IIHL/IHL/BHL quality players unsigned at a start of a season that show promise for growth that I signed a season or two ago so they had a chance to develop) my roster is at 37. Who I would get rid of to get to 35 wouldn't be a hard decision. After this season is over if I keep this roster as is the rest of the season and stay in the GHL I will be letting go of 8 players. 35 is definitely manageable for a GHL team. A bit tight but definitely manageable.

Don't think that I am saying that there shouldn't be a roster limit. When the suggestion first came up a long time ago I said somewhere in the ballpark of 40 is where I think we should be. Too low of a roster limit and proper team building becomes nearly impossible as does sustaining your team from efforts within. Too high a limit and it might as well not be there. With around 40 you can have 5 depth players give or take a few and 10-12 prospects with some extra room left over for multiplayer trades.
 
Edit: Also turning and burning picks means that someone somewhere is selling out their picks/prospects for a short term risk while the team benefiting is maintaining their position atop the league they are in with valuable future assets. So long as the team benefiting works the deals to maintain status que they aren't ever going to move and it will remain status quo. If you guys don't think human managers are that gullible look at the team that won the GHL in Biscuit the prior two seasons. They got human managers to give them way more value than the players they were trading away were worth and now that team is a gold mine of young players.

1. West Chicago Protons (Richard "bouncer" Feynman)
OFF: 90 DEF: 94 SG: 97 OVR: 92,0
Age: 30,5
 
2. Deadwood Vandals (Kim "koekefix" Vandaele)
OFF: 90 DEF: 92 SG: 96 OVR: 91,4
Age: 29,2
 
3. Portland Marauders (Xavier "xZhou" Zhou)
OFF: 90 DEF: 92 SG: 93 OVR: 91,1
Age: 25,9
 
4. Richford Rebels (Jusu "Jusu5" Manager)
OFF: 89 DEF: 92 SG: 95 OVR: 90,9
Age: 28,7
 
5. Canmore Grizzlies (Matt "themattinthehat" Muffett)
OFF: 90 DEF: 91 SG: 92 OVR 90,6
Age: 28,5
 
6. Harrisonville Sabercats (Hurja "HurjaHerra" Herra)
OFF: 90 DEF: 90 SG: 95 OVR: 90,5
Age: 29,4
 
7. St. Thomas Stray Cats (Erzac "Erzac" Ray)
OFF: 89 DEF: 91 SG: 93 OVR: 90,2
Age: 27,5
 
8. Eldred Elite (Steven "Steve" Bennett)
OFF: 89 DEF: 91 SG: 93 OVR: 90,1
Age: 29,6
 
9. Cedar Rapids Minutemen (Richard "rainsilent" Armour)
OFF: 88 DEF: 92 SG: 94 OVR: 90,0
Age: 27,5
 
10. Thetford Mines Pegasus (Anthony "Pingu" Grauwels)
OFF: 90 DEF: 89 SG: 95 OVR: 89,8
Age: 28,4
 
11. York Wolf Pack (Jiri "jiihee" Heikkala)
OFF: 89 DEF: 90 SG: 93 OVR: 89,7
Age: 29,9
 
12. Buckingham Breakouts (Jussi "jusatin" Ahonen)
OFF: 88 DEF: 90 SG: 95 OVR: 89,2
Age: 27,2
 
13. Violet Volcano (Soupy Salez)
OFF: 88 DEF: 89 SG: 96 OVR: 89,1
Age: 28,9
 
14. Cuba City Tomahawks (BEN \)
OFF: 87 DEF: 90 SG: 91 OVR: 88,6
Age: 30,3
 
15. Hawkeye Indians (Wills Sk)
OFF: 87 DEF: 90 SG: 91 OVR: 88,6
Age: 27,1
 
16. Pinehurst Miners (Phoenix "phoenixtf" TF)
OFF: 87 DEF: 89 SG: 95 OVR: 88,5
Age: 28,3
 
League AVG team OVR: 90,0
League AVG team age: 28,6
 
 
Calculated on day 3 of S14, using:
 
Team OVR = (OFF + (DEF x 2) + (SG x 2))/26
 
where
OFF = Combined overall of 12 best centers/forwards
DEF = Combined overall of 6 best defenders
SG = Overall of starting goalie (best overall goalie in team)

Don't think that I am saying that there shouldn't be a roster limit. When the suggestion first came up a long time ago I said somewhere in the ballpark of 40 is where I think we should be. Too low of a roster limit and proper team building becomes nearly impossible as does sustaining your team from efforts within. Too high a limit and it might as well not be there. With around 40 you can have 5 depth players give or take a few and 10-12 prospects with some extra room left over for multiplayer trades.
 
Edit: Also turning and burning picks means that someone somewhere is selling out their picks/prospects for a short term risk while the team benefiting is maintaining their position atop the league they are in with valuable future assets. So long as the team benefiting works the deals to maintain status que they aren't ever going to move and it will remain status quo. If you guys don't think human managers are that gullible look at the team that won the GHL in Biscuit the prior two seasons. They got human managers to give them way more value than the players they were trading away were worth and now that team is a gold mine of young players.

The roster limit has to apply to all players for simplicity sake. You can't have 18-20 players not counting. Edit: ok you can but again simpler is better usually. If GHL teams have only 10 extra players they would theoretically be continuously trading prospects for picks, drafting those players and then trading them again just to stay under the roster limit. It creates a ridiculous situation.
 
Also if it is more difficult to hoard players in the lower leagues than what is the point of the higher roster limit? I ask this in complete, genuine honesty.
 
Finally creating a roster limit doesn't directly address the real issue with player hoarding. The fact that teams can sign players of any age and skill level and then stash them away in their affiliate system. With the roster limit it would theoretically be possible to still stash away 10 real quality players and still hoard them. What I suggested to Anders in the original hoarding thread is a much better solution because it is direct. Any player above a certain age and overall (I think 23-25 and older at say 83 overall for GHL teams is about right) that get sent to the affiliate immediately goes on waivers for x time. Only after that time is up and no team claims them will they then go to the affiliates and stay on said team. Every new season the players that are at or above the age limit go to the main roster and have to be sent to the affiliate at the start of the season to have the process repeat again unless the manager decides to keep them on the main roster to again prevent from player hoarding.
 
Edit: Paul T it doesn't matter how much you care or not. It is important to talk about it and any other issues in the game openly. The more friendly dialogue that happens over an issue the more possible solutions that can be found. The more possible solutions that get discussed the more likely it is that a really good solution gets found. Good solution idea or not talking about issues with the game in an open and friendly manner only will go to help make the game better as issues are getting discussed which will lead to suggested fixes which will lead to improving the game.
 
As for low player salaries yes it is a real issue but what isn't helping is the inflated overalls. I think once player overalls come back down again we can see what the salary demands are doing and go from there. That said players weren't asking enough then either so bumping up player salary demands at least a little wouldn't be a bad thing in my mind at all. After all the ideal situation is that the best teams have to deal with cap crunches and difficult decisions in who to keep and who to give away or get rid when their team is good because of quality depth.

A few things. 30 players is too few. That is 10 extra players total. That means your getting rid of drafted players very quickly. Too quickly. It completely prevents from building a team and sustaining it from within via through the draft. I get player hoarding is an issue but the answer is not the other extreme where sustainability is found through pot luck signings in FA.
 
Also for simplicity sake choose a number and stick with it for every league. It makes it easier to code and for all to understand. The simpler things are to code the more likely they are to be looked at to be added into the game and the less likely they are to break and the easier they are to fix if the do break or have bugs. The easier to understand the better for all players in the game.
 
As for hoarding players Anders is working on a fix so please be patient.

That record is short term. Don't trust short term. For dump and chase you have to have a fast and physical team.
 
My advice would be pick the style you want your team to play. The players will learn it and they will focus their training to develop the skills relevant for it faster than other skills. As for what to go for I have descriptions of the offensive tactics here: http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/6845-general-user-guide/
 
To help you I will repost them for you here:
Offensive tactics
 
Crash the Net: This is very simple. Puck and players to the net. In real life this isn't a tactic so much as it is a way of life. Hockey players are preached to crash the net. "Go to the net and good things will happen," "throw the puck to the net because anything could happen" and "there is no such thing as a bad shot" (there actually is) are things you commonly hear if you watch NHL games.
 
What do you need for this tactic? Players high in the physical attribute. Bigger sized players are also a plus. The good about this tactic: You only need one skill to make it work and it is very simple. The Bad: You NEED one skill to make it work or it will not work at all, it is heavily reliant on your players to have higher physical skills and be bigger than the opposing defensemen for it to work, it is simple and very easy to counter.
 
This tactic is the least efficient tactic out there and the most reliant on the opposing team being weak to it makes it pretty much not worth it. This tactic isn't garbage. it is just over reliant on a few things making it a very situational tactic at best. Using a situational tactic all of the time isn't exactly an ideal situation.
 
Dump and Chase: This is all about getting the puck deep and then getting the puck via a strong forecheck. This tactic is less about skill and more about the defensive posture of the opposing team through the neutral zone. If the defensive posture is "up" then a dump and chase is a very good tactic to use. However that is in a real hockey game.
 
What do you need for this tactic? Speed and physical skills predominantly. Like above bigger sized players are a plus. The good: This tactic is all about using your teams physical attributes to the greatest possible effect. It isn't overly reliant on puck skills. The bad: Due to the aggressive hitting nature of this tactic over aggressive players will take a lot of penalties, considering that your team will take more penalties off of the bat as it is that could really kill any momentum your team builds on a regular basis making it difficult for your team to generate much offense.
 
This tactic is still very reliant on a players physical skill so not having a lot of forwards with high physical ratings will hurt this offense a lot. This tactic and the tactic above are the two physically focused offensive styles. The dump and chase is the more versatile of the two as it is less reliant on the opponent and their skills and more about your own players and theirs.
 
Puck possession: This is all about controlling the puck in the opponents end by passing the puck around. This tactic is the basis of most modern hockey offenses. Even the LA Kings use a puck possession offense with a heavy influence of physical play whereas the Chicago Blackhawks use a more finesse based puck possession style.
 
What you need: Puck handling and passing and then more puck handling and passing and then even more. The Good: This tactic is all about the puck skills of your players. This is the most difficult offense to stop with a skilled team. The bad: This is the most difficult offense to run because it is exceptionally reliant on the puck skills of your players.
 
This tactic is very high risk high reward in nature. As a result if you don't do things right things can very easily go very wrong with this tactic. You don't need fast or physical players but that will definitely help.
 
Transition rushes: This is all about counter attacking quickly. Get the puck and get it up ice quickly trying to create odd man rushes. However in the real life game this is not an offensive strategy per se and more another part of the game altogether.
 
What you need: A lot of skating, passing and puck handling. The good: Very aggressive and fast offensive tactic that aims to take advantage of both the speed and skill of your players. The bad: This tactic has the most demands from the players as they need to be fast, good puck handlers and passers.
 
Like puck possession this is high risk high reward but it is also the tactic that demands the most out of the players which demands the most out of you as well as you need the right players for this tactic to work. Also this tactic has some reliance on the opposing team as well making it that much more harder to implement successfully.
 
Since I finally have a week off from work and life short of a sudden call from life I will be adding at least defensive descriptions this week to that after a long overdue time of not adding it. It literally takes hours to do that stuff.

That record is short term. Don't trust short term. For dump and chase you have to have a fast and physical team.
 
My advice would be pick the style you want your team to play. The players will learn it and they will focus their training to develop the skills relevant for it faster than other skills. As for what to go for I have descriptions of the offensive tactics here: http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/6845-general-user-guide/
 
To help you I will repost them for you here:
Offensive tactics
 
Crash the Net: This is very simple. Puck and players to the net. In real life this isn't a tactic so much as it is a way of life. Hockey players are preached to crash the net. "Go to the net and good things will happen," "throw the puck to the net because anything could happen" and "there is no such thing as a bad shot" (there actually is) are things you commonly hear if you watch NHL games.
 
What do you need for this tactic? Players high in the physical attribute. Bigger sized players are also a plus. The good about this tactic: You only need one skill to make it work and it is very simple. The Bad: You NEED one skill to make it work or it will not work at all, it is heavily reliant on your players to have higher physical skills and be bigger than the opposing defensemen for it to work, it is simple and very easy to counter.
 
This tactic is the least efficient tactic out there and the most reliant on the opposing team being weak to it makes it pretty much not worth it. This tactic isn't garbage. it is just over reliant on a few things making it a very situational tactic at best. Using a situational tactic all of the time isn't exactly an ideal situation.
 
Dump and Chase: This is all about getting the puck deep and then getting the puck via a strong forecheck. This tactic is less about skill and more about the defensive posture of the opposing team through the neutral zone. If the defensive posture is "up" then a dump and chase is a very good tactic to use. However that is in a real hockey game.
 
What do you need for this tactic? Speed and physical skills predominantly. Like above bigger sized players are a plus. The good: This tactic is all about using your teams physical attributes to the greatest possible effect. It isn't overly reliant on puck skills. The bad: Due to the aggressive hitting nature of this tactic over aggressive players will take a lot of penalties, considering that your team will take more penalties off of the bat as it is that could really kill any momentum your team builds on a regular basis making it difficult for your team to generate much offense.
 
This tactic is still very reliant on a players physical skill so not having a lot of forwards with high physical ratings will hurt this offense a lot. This tactic and the tactic above are the two physically focused offensive styles. The dump and chase is the more versatile of the two as it is less reliant on the opponent and their skills and more about your own players and theirs.
 
Puck possession: This is all about controlling the puck in the opponents end by passing the puck around. This tactic is the basis of most modern hockey offenses. Even the LA Kings use a puck possession offense with a heavy influence of physical play whereas the Chicago Blackhawks use a more finesse based puck possession style.
 
What you need: Puck handling and passing and then more puck handling and passing and then even more. The Good: This tactic is all about the puck skills of your players. This is the most difficult offense to stop with a skilled team. The bad: This is the most difficult offense to run because it is exceptionally reliant on the puck skills of your players.
 
This tactic is very high risk high reward in nature. As a result if you don't do things right things can very easily go very wrong with this tactic. You don't need fast or physical players but that will definitely help.
 
Transition rushes: This is all about counter attacking quickly. Get the puck and get it up ice quickly trying to create odd man rushes. However in the real life game this is not an offensive strategy per se and more another part of the game altogether.
 
What you need: A lot of skating, passing and puck handling. The good: Very aggressive and fast offensive tactic that aims to take advantage of both the speed and skill of your players. The bad: This tactic has the most demands from the players as they need to be fast, good puck handlers and passers.
 
Like puck possession this is high risk high reward but it is also the tactic that demands the most out of the players which demands the most out of you as well as you need the right players for this tactic to work. Also this tactic has some reliance on the opposing team as well making it that much more harder to implement successfully.
 
Since I finally have a week off from work and life short of a sudden call from life I will be adding at least defensive descriptions this week to that after a long overdue time of not adding it. It literally takes hours to do that stuff.

In terms of team focus i change it rather regularly with mostly positive effects. Knowing how to change it and what to is the important thing.
 
In regards to the tactics it is very possible to continuously change the team tactics to where none of them ever gets out of red and you win a lot of games however you have to precisely predict the tactics the opposing teams are going to use in each game to have any chance of success short of just having the best players by far. If the players are roughly equal and you guess wrong it is a near guarantee that you will lose with the only question being by how much.
 
 
I should have replied to this when you posted. I apologize that I missed it.
 
Team focus is more a game to game game plan thing yes. I adjust my teams focus depending upon the strengths and weaknesses of both my team and the opposing team. If the opposing team is a strong offensive team but a bit weak defensively or in net I will set my team to be more offensive as well because I have a defensive team with a strong goalie. I am willing to bet that my defense and goalie will outlast their offense better than their D and goalie can hold against mine. However if the opposing team is just better than mine (Protons) I will try to play a conservative defensive game trying to hold the score close and hope for a 1-0, 2-1 game where my team scores the last and hopefully deciding goal as I lean on my teams defense (its greatest strength) heavily to try to get a win.

Coach Thor Viklander's speech after the Black Flag secured their stay in the SHL after a 5-0 game 2 win:
 
"Congratulations, you guys did it - you can all stay on the team! Except Seeger, Juarez, and Neskarov; you guys didn't have a choice. Alright now let's get ready for tomorrow's big game three finale where none of you will be playing! Great job everyone!"
 
WHISPERS TO ASSISTANT: "Ok, so I left you that beard and fake belly suit so you can play me tomorrow - I'm heading to Hawaii for some vacation, see you in a couple weeks..."

That record is short term. Don't trust short term. For dump and chase you have to have a fast and physical team.
 
My advice would be pick the style you want your team to play. The players will learn it and they will focus their training to develop the skills relevant for it faster than other skills. As for what to go for I have descriptions of the offensive tactics here: http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/6845-general-user-guide/
 
To help you I will repost them for you here:
Offensive tactics
 
Crash the Net: This is very simple. Puck and players to the net. In real life this isn't a tactic so much as it is a way of life. Hockey players are preached to crash the net. "Go to the net and good things will happen," "throw the puck to the net because anything could happen" and "there is no such thing as a bad shot" (there actually is) are things you commonly hear if you watch NHL games.
 
What do you need for this tactic? Players high in the physical attribute. Bigger sized players are also a plus. The good about this tactic: You only need one skill to make it work and it is very simple. The Bad: You NEED one skill to make it work or it will not work at all, it is heavily reliant on your players to have higher physical skills and be bigger than the opposing defensemen for it to work, it is simple and very easy to counter.
 
This tactic is the least efficient tactic out there and the most reliant on the opposing team being weak to it makes it pretty much not worth it. This tactic isn't garbage. it is just over reliant on a few things making it a very situational tactic at best. Using a situational tactic all of the time isn't exactly an ideal situation.
 
Dump and Chase: This is all about getting the puck deep and then getting the puck via a strong forecheck. This tactic is less about skill and more about the defensive posture of the opposing team through the neutral zone. If the defensive posture is "up" then a dump and chase is a very good tactic to use. However that is in a real hockey game.
 
What do you need for this tactic? Speed and physical skills predominantly. Like above bigger sized players are a plus. The good: This tactic is all about using your teams physical attributes to the greatest possible effect. It isn't overly reliant on puck skills. The bad: Due to the aggressive hitting nature of this tactic over aggressive players will take a lot of penalties, considering that your team will take more penalties off of the bat as it is that could really kill any momentum your team builds on a regular basis making it difficult for your team to generate much offense.
 
This tactic is still very reliant on a players physical skill so not having a lot of forwards with high physical ratings will hurt this offense a lot. This tactic and the tactic above are the two physically focused offensive styles. The dump and chase is the more versatile of the two as it is less reliant on the opponent and their skills and more about your own players and theirs.
 
Puck possession: This is all about controlling the puck in the opponents end by passing the puck around. This tactic is the basis of most modern hockey offenses. Even the LA Kings use a puck possession offense with a heavy influence of physical play whereas the Chicago Blackhawks use a more finesse based puck possession style.
 
What you need: Puck handling and passing and then more puck handling and passing and then even more. The Good: This tactic is all about the puck skills of your players. This is the most difficult offense to stop with a skilled team. The bad: This is the most difficult offense to run because it is exceptionally reliant on the puck skills of your players.
 
This tactic is very high risk high reward in nature. As a result if you don't do things right things can very easily go very wrong with this tactic. You don't need fast or physical players but that will definitely help.
 
Transition rushes: This is all about counter attacking quickly. Get the puck and get it up ice quickly trying to create odd man rushes. However in the real life game this is not an offensive strategy per se and more another part of the game altogether.
 
What you need: A lot of skating, passing and puck handling. The good: Very aggressive and fast offensive tactic that aims to take advantage of both the speed and skill of your players. The bad: This tactic has the most demands from the players as they need to be fast, good puck handlers and passers.
 
Like puck possession this is high risk high reward but it is also the tactic that demands the most out of the players which demands the most out of you as well as you need the right players for this tactic to work. Also this tactic has some reliance on the opposing team as well making it that much more harder to implement successfully.
 
Since I finally have a week off from work and life short of a sudden call from life I will be adding at least defensive descriptions this week to that after a long overdue time of not adding it. It literally takes hours to do that stuff.

In terms of team focus i change it rather regularly with mostly positive effects. Knowing how to change it and what to is the important thing.
 
In regards to the tactics it is very possible to continuously change the team tactics to where none of them ever gets out of red and you win a lot of games however you have to precisely predict the tactics the opposing teams are going to use in each game to have any chance of success short of just having the best players by far. If the players are roughly equal and you guess wrong it is a near guarantee that you will lose with the only question being by how much.
 
 
I should have replied to this when you posted. I apologize that I missed it.
 
Team focus is more a game to game game plan thing yes. I adjust my teams focus depending upon the strengths and weaknesses of both my team and the opposing team. If the opposing team is a strong offensive team but a bit weak defensively or in net I will set my team to be more offensive as well because I have a defensive team with a strong goalie. I am willing to bet that my defense and goalie will outlast their offense better than their D and goalie can hold against mine. However if the opposing team is just better than mine (Protons) I will try to play a conservative defensive game trying to hold the score close and hope for a 1-0, 2-1 game where my team scores the last and hopefully deciding goal as I lean on my teams defense (its greatest strength) heavily to try to get a win.

That is an amazing statistic. Good luck in that match up.
 
I'm cheering for you Exxeo.

That is an amazing statistic. Good luck in that match up.
 
I'm cheering for you Exxeo.

That record is short term. Don't trust short term. For dump and chase you have to have a fast and physical team.
 
My advice would be pick the style you want your team to play. The players will learn it and they will focus their training to develop the skills relevant for it faster than other skills. As for what to go for I have descriptions of the offensive tactics here: http://forums.gmgames.org/topic/6845-general-user-guide/
 
To help you I will repost them for you here:
Offensive tactics
 
Crash the Net: This is very simple. Puck and players to the net. In real life this isn't a tactic so much as it is a way of life. Hockey players are preached to crash the net. "Go to the net and good things will happen," "throw the puck to the net because anything could happen" and "there is no such thing as a bad shot" (there actually is) are things you commonly hear if you watch NHL games.
 
What do you need for this tactic? Players high in the physical attribute. Bigger sized players are also a plus. The good about this tactic: You only need one skill to make it work and it is very simple. The Bad: You NEED one skill to make it work or it will not work at all, it is heavily reliant on your players to have higher physical skills and be bigger than the opposing defensemen for it to work, it is simple and very easy to counter.
 
This tactic is the least efficient tactic out there and the most reliant on the opposing team being weak to it makes it pretty much not worth it. This tactic isn't garbage. it is just over reliant on a few things making it a very situational tactic at best. Using a situational tactic all of the time isn't exactly an ideal situation.
 
Dump and Chase: This is all about getting the puck deep and then getting the puck via a strong forecheck. This tactic is less about skill and more about the defensive posture of the opposing team through the neutral zone. If the defensive posture is "up" then a dump and chase is a very good tactic to use. However that is in a real hockey game.
 
What do you need for this tactic? Speed and physical skills predominantly. Like above bigger sized players are a plus. The good: This tactic is all about using your teams physical attributes to the greatest possible effect. It isn't overly reliant on puck skills. The bad: Due to the aggressive hitting nature of this tactic over aggressive players will take a lot of penalties, considering that your team will take more penalties off of the bat as it is that could really kill any momentum your team builds on a regular basis making it difficult for your team to generate much offense.
 
This tactic is still very reliant on a players physical skill so not having a lot of forwards with high physical ratings will hurt this offense a lot. This tactic and the tactic above are the two physically focused offensive styles. The dump and chase is the more versatile of the two as it is less reliant on the opponent and their skills and more about your own players and theirs.
 
Puck possession: This is all about controlling the puck in the opponents end by passing the puck around. This tactic is the basis of most modern hockey offenses. Even the LA Kings use a puck possession offense with a heavy influence of physical play whereas the Chicago Blackhawks use a more finesse based puck possession style.
 
What you need: Puck handling and passing and then more puck handling and passing and then even more. The Good: This tactic is all about the puck skills of your players. This is the most difficult offense to stop with a skilled team. The bad: This is the most difficult offense to run because it is exceptionally reliant on the puck skills of your players.
 
This tactic is very high risk high reward in nature. As a result if you don't do things right things can very easily go very wrong with this tactic. You don't need fast or physical players but that will definitely help.
 
Transition rushes: This is all about counter attacking quickly. Get the puck and get it up ice quickly trying to create odd man rushes. However in the real life game this is not an offensive strategy per se and more another part of the game altogether.
 
What you need: A lot of skating, passing and puck handling. The good: Very aggressive and fast offensive tactic that aims to take advantage of both the speed and skill of your players. The bad: This tactic has the most demands from the players as they need to be fast, good puck handlers and passers.
 
Like puck possession this is high risk high reward but it is also the tactic that demands the most out of the players which demands the most out of you as well as you need the right players for this tactic to work. Also this tactic has some reliance on the opposing team as well making it that much more harder to implement successfully.
 
Since I finally have a week off from work and life short of a sudden call from life I will be adding at least defensive descriptions this week to that after a long overdue time of not adding it. It literally takes hours to do that stuff.

In terms of team focus i change it rather regularly with mostly positive effects. Knowing how to change it and what to is the important thing.
 
In regards to the tactics it is very possible to continuously change the team tactics to where none of them ever gets out of red and you win a lot of games however you have to precisely predict the tactics the opposing teams are going to use in each game to have any chance of success short of just having the best players by far. If the players are roughly equal and you guess wrong it is a near guarantee that you will lose with the only question being by how much.
 
 
I should have replied to this when you posted. I apologize that I missed it.
 
Team focus is more a game to game game plan thing yes. I adjust my teams focus depending upon the strengths and weaknesses of both my team and the opposing team. If the opposing team is a strong offensive team but a bit weak defensively or in net I will set my team to be more offensive as well because I have a defensive team with a strong goalie. I am willing to bet that my defense and goalie will outlast their offense better than their D and goalie can hold against mine. However if the opposing team is just better than mine (Protons) I will try to play a conservative defensive game trying to hold the score close and hope for a 1-0, 2-1 game where my team scores the last and hopefully deciding goal as I lean on my teams defense (its greatest strength) heavily to try to get a win.

Updated the team roster below! I used the rule of thumb for those with ambiguous last names like Lang that I assumed they were of Asian descent if they were of American/Canadian nationality - which doesn't completely resolve the discrepancy but helps alleviate some of the more obvious problems. Also realized I somehow missed Bob Honda, who would undoubtedly be the most decorated player on this team as not only a six-time GHL champion but also leading the GHL in scoring in Season 8.
 

 
 
Some other observations when I took a deeper dive into the players' backgrounds: 
There were 18 Americans and 12 Canadians out of all the players I found of Asian background (not all of them made the final roster since I only took the highest rated). 17 Chinese-Americans/Canadians which was by far the highest number, although again some surnames were difficult to assign to a single nationality Of these 17, there seemed to be a disproportionately high number from southern Cantonese-speaking parts of China with surnames such as Chan, Ly, Chow, etc.  6 Vietnamese-Americans/Canadians, which again was higher than I expected Only 7 total of Japanese or Korean descent, which was lower than I anticipated. Although this may be due to the ambiguity of some surnames, I was still surprised not to see many given their relative prevalence in real life Not a lot of common surnames - for example, it was surprising not to find a Li, Kim, or Chen to name just a few while we had much rarer surnames appear. However, I have seen more common surnames such as Xu and Zhang in other game worlds (UAT Mitts, Dangles) Also put together a quick mock lineup based on rating/handedness:
 
Forwards
Honda - Yao - S. Do
Sin - Bui - Wan
Pon - C. Do - Jung
Ly - Yi - Chan
Loy
 
Defensemen
Vu - Lao
Chow - Osano
Lang - Noda
Noto
 
Goalies
Yu
Chin
Le
 
Not a typical-sounding lineup at all!

Motivated by the number of players of Asian descent to have recently been drafted in the early rounds of the NHL Draft, such as Nick Suzuki, Kailer Yamomoto, Cliff Pu, Jason Robertson, Tyler Inamoto, and Jonathan Ang, I compiled a list of players of Asian descent in GW Biscuit (total of 33 players, including some in the junior leagues) and created a team from the top-rated players at each position. 
 

 
Although definitely lacking in depth, the team actually has some bright spots. Specifically, goaltending would unquestionably be a strength, as Justin Yu is one of the best goalies in Biscuit and still getting better. Jermey Sin was actually the Russian League scoring leader last season, and would spearhead this team's attack along with centres Max Lang and Preston Yao. Ruari Vu and Graham Lao form a competent top defensive pairing for the team, although the quality of defensemen drop down drastically afterwards.

Many of the players for this team (Sarah Do, Anthony Bui, Ryan Lai, etc.) are fast approaching retirement and have declined significantly in the past season or two. As a result, part of the reason behind me posting this now was to acknowledge them for their solid careers. On the other hand of the spectrum, there are a number of young players such as 15-year-old Louis-Phillip Low of the Ingolf Hawks (CAJHL) who I'd expect to continue to rise up the ranks and help fill in the gaps left by these retiring players.

Note that in cases where there was some ambiguity as to the name, such as the surname Lang, I assumed that these players are of Asian descent. In addition, just going off of last names of possibly Asian descent misses players who have Anglicized last names such as Jason Robertson, of Filipino descent, who was drafted by the Dallas Stars 39th overall in the 2017 NHL Draft. Finally, I have a hunch that I missed a number of players of Japanese descent simply because their surnames may not be as easy to spot when scrolling through hundreds of names so feel free to let me know if I've missed anyone!

Absolutely yes choose one and stick with it. Remember that the tactics you are switching back and forth on are drastically different play styles that you are asking your team to play. If you watch the NHL you will hear every once in a while people mention a teams identity or lack thereof. This is exactly what they are talking about.
 
It is deliberately impossible to get two different tactics to 100% because professional teams don't do it unless something is very wrong. You will never see LA go from their physical defensive game to an offensive speed game. You won't ever see Pittsburgh do the opposite.

In the affiliate they train as hard as you set them to. The problem is that injuries stagnates training while the player is hurt. Combine that with players on affiliate teams regularly getting fatigued due to the combination of hard training and a lack of managing minutes and I don't doubt that fatigue injuries happen a bit more often than we would like in the affiliates. Hence me mentioning those pros and cons.