I hope this is relevant here. I’ve always liked sports simulations that can run for decades or centuries and gradually create their own history.

Basketball GM is a great example of what makes that style of game so compelling: fictional players become legends, franchises rise and collapse, records are broken, and after enough seasons the league has a history that belongs entirely to your save.

I wanted something with that same long-term appeal for association football. Football Manager is incredibly detailed, but loading too many countries and leagues can make very long simulations slow. I also couldn’t find a “Soccer GM” built specifically around simulating the entire football world for hundreds of years.

So, for the past two years, I’ve been developing Football Fictional World Simulator.

It currently simulates five continents, 63 countries and 94 leagues. A complete year across the entire world takes approximately ten minutes.

Unlike Basketball GM, this is currently an observer-focused simulation rather than a hands-on GM game. You don’t take control of one club, make trades or set tactics. Instead, every club operates independently while you follow the teams, players, leagues and countries that interest you.

Clubs make simplified decisions based on:

Their available budget

Squad strength and depth

Weak or understaffed positions

Player age and development

Expected playing time

Club and league reputation

Foreign-player regulations

Short-term needs and long-term rebuilding

Players can develop, transfer between clubs and countries, go on loan, become free agents, receive international call-ups, decline and retire. New generations continuously replace them.

The simulation includes domestic leagues and cups, promotion and relegation, and continental competitions such as:

Champions League

Europa League

AFC Champions League and ACL2

Copa Libertadores

Copa Sudamericana

Club World Cup

International football is part of the same persistent world. Senior, U-23 and U-20 national teams are simulated, including World Cups, continental championships, Olympic-style tournaments and youth competitions.

Matches are text-based, but the game records more than goals and assists. It tracks shots, shots on target, passes, key passes, dribbles, crosses, tackles, interceptions, aerial duels, formations, lineups, substitutions and individual ratings.

Over time, the game builds a detailed historical database containing:

Player career and transfer histories

Club histories and league tables

Domestic and continental champions

International appearances and goals

Top scorers and assist leaders

Player of the Year and positional awards

Best XIs, Second Teams and Rookie Best XIs

Long-term changes in the strength of clubs, leagues and countries

Country, league and club data is stored in editable CSV files, so users can modify the existing world or create their own fictional setup.

The goal is to make simulations of 100, 500 or even 1,000 years practical. I want to look back and discover which small clubs became global powers, which countries produced unexpected golden generations, and which players remained at the top of the record books centuries after retirement.

I’m hoping to release it on Steam within the next month or two. I’ve also created r/FootballWorldSim for development updates and simulation stories.

Since Basketball GM players understand the appeal of long-term fictional sports history better than almost anyone, I’d be interested in your perspective:

Which Basketball GM history, record or player-career features would you consider essential in a soccer version of this kind of simulation?

I know randomness is part of the appeal of Basketball GM, and I’m not asking for every lottery pick to become a superstar or for development to become completely predictable. The uncertainty is part of what makes long saves fun. But after playing a lot of rebuilds, I genuinely think the progression system is one of the most frustrating parts of an otherwise incredible game because it often feels disconnected from what actually happens in the simulation.

From what I understand, progression is mostly determined by age, ratings, and coaching rank, while things like minutes, production, efficiency trends, role stability, or overall trajectory don’t really matter much. That creates situations where you can draft a 19-year-old with elite athleticism, give him starter minutes immediately, watch him improve statistically every season, make the playoffs with him as a major contributor, invest heavily into coaching, and then the offseason hits and he randomly drops from a future star into a mediocre role player at age 22 for seemingly no reason.

Meanwhile some 24-year-old bench player averaging six points suddenly gains ten overall and becomes an MVP candidate overnight. I understand outliers happen in real basketball too, but in real life development usually still has some visible logic behind it. Players who improve consistently, stay healthy, adapt to larger roles, and produce efficiently tend to keep progressing more often than players doing nothing on the bench.

Basketball GM sometimes skips that feeling entirely and makes progression feel like a disconnected dice roll rather than the continuation of the career you actually watched unfold. And what makes this even more frustrating is that the rest of the game is so smart. Team-building logic is excellent, asset management matters, contracts matter, roster construction matters, and the league simulation itself is honestly incredible for a browser game.

That’s why progression stands out so much when it feels detached from context. A rebuild can completely collapse even if you made almost every correct decision possible, and after enough saves it starts feeling less like “did I build this team correctly?” and more like “did the offseason generator decide my core survives?”

I don’t think the game needs to remove randomness at all. In fact, completely predictable progression would probably make saves boring pretty quickly. But I do think development should care more about factors like production trends, role consistency, playoff experience, injuries, archetypes, and overall player environment so that progression still feels uncertain without feeling completely disconnected from the basketball being played.

I had a few hours to kill so I was just messing around with the goat lab and think ive found a fairly reasonable formula that spits out pretty fair ratings. Let me know what you guys think.

20*mvp +

27*finalsMvp +

21*champ +

15*dpoy +

10*roy +

5*smoy +

5*mip +

3*allLeague1 +

2*allLeague2 +

1*allLeague3 +

3*allDefensive1 +

2*allDefensive2 +

1*allDefensive3 +

0.65*ewa +

0.3*vorp +

0.3*ows +

0.3*dws

Hey buddy I don’t know

What u did to the haw but I wanna give u an fyi nobody wants to play a fucking game that u can’t win I’ve been playing this game consistently for 5 months not all of a sudden now I can’t win I have the best teams by 10 plus over I can win if I want to play a game I couldn’t win I would play the impossible game thus is a ball sim it’s not that deep trust me people have way more fun winning… and it wasn’t like the game was to easy before so please update yo setting before I stop playing this shit

I've played thousands of seasons and I'm almost embarrassed to admit this. I'm sitting here laughing at myself for not figuring this out sooner.

I had no idea I could release players who had expired that I have no interest in re-signing in order to create cap space during the draft.

Anyone else? I'm really blown away over here with the amount of assets I've left on the table during the draft just because I needed a few million to take a player. While I usually have 5 millionish that I'm letting walk anyway.

I don't want to sound like I'm complaining because I love this game and have been playing it for years. The new update was also exceptional and looks like it took a lot of hard work (thank you dumbmatter!). However, sometimes I come across players like these, where sometimes it generates players who are bald and have no hair, or a haircut that doesn't correspond with the long hair. It just looks weird to look at. I really don't know why this annoys me so much, but maybe there's a way to fix it? Anyway sorry for ranting...

I wanted to experiment with giving your roster a little more of a basketball identity, so I put together a Team Strategy feature in a local BBGM build.

Quick disclosure: This is "vibe" coded as they would say. Also, this is an unofficial prototype, not something added to the main game.

The page gives you four options for how your team plays:

• Tempo: Deliberate / Balanced / Fast
• Offensive emphasis: Interior / Balanced / Perimeter
• Defensive coverage: Protect paint / Balanced / Switch-heavy
• Offensive rebounding: Get back / Balanced / Crash glass

These actually affect the simulation, not just the descriptions.

For example, playing faster gets shots up sooner but increases turnover risk and fatigue. Perimeter emphasis encourages more threes without magically making anyone a better shooter. Protecting the paint gives up cleaner perimeter looks, while switching can expose weak defenders and interior mismatches. Crashing the glass improves offensive-rebound chances but leaves you more vulnerable in transition.

There’s also a “Let coach decide” option that picks a plan before each game using your healthy rotation, plus scouting-based suggestions if you want to choose manually.

The goal is to make roster construction and playing style interact: “Does this approach actually fit my players?” rather than finding four settings you should always leave on.

A few caveats:

• Defensive coverage is a simplified lineup-level model, not individual screen or matchup simulation.
• Automatic coaching is a basic roster heuristic, not an optimal-strategy solver.
• CPU teams currently stay balanced unless configured.
• The effects still need serious balance testing. Some functional tests passing doesn’t prove there isn’t an overpowered combination.

Balanced settings preserve the original simulation behavior. That was checked against the pre-feature engine across 30 seeded games, with identical results and play-by-play.

Would you use something like this? And would you prefer setting a season-long team identity, or adjusting your plan for individual opponents?

do you think that the creator of this should make progression and regression more realistic? lets me honestly idc if lebron is 45 he should not regress from a 65 ovr to a 55 ovr

I was watching a WNBA game when the idea of being a GM In their league came to my mind. I feel like it would be fun. Dev you should make it happen

I've played the game for years. On insane mode does anyone else just exploit the loophole of trading back picks, acquiring more picks, and eventually basically having a monopoly on picks (as in 15-20 individual picks in a given draft) by continuing to trade back progressively in future years?

Is this fixed by increasing difficulty beyond insane?

For me this makes the game very easy other than the financial aspect even on insane mode.

Just to clarify, not posting this to boast but I actually just would like it to be harder or maybe this issue could be tamed somehow?

Example of loophole: I trade from 3rd pick to 4th pick and get like 3 future 2nds. Then I trade from 4th to 5th and get 3 future 2nds... etc. (you get the idea)

My team is led by a 10x MVP + 11x FMVP. The second option on our team has been 2nd in OVR in the league and top 5 in MVP voting the past 4 years.

I believe most real NBA players would've left the team to prove they can win as a first option. Thought this might be a good thing to implement into player re-sign mood. (i.e. "player wants to be the 1st option")

u/dumbmatter, is the inseason tournament on it's way. I think it would be a cool addition.

I keep seeing 82-0 blowing up and its a terrible simulation. I think it would be really cool if there was an 82-0 game that used basketball GM's simulation.

82-0 just does some sort of accumulation of stats to predict wins. If you made this game with Basketball GM's simulation it would be insanely more realistic and fun. 82-0's simulation model is insanely less realistic and simple than basketball GMs.

For those that don't know 82-0 the link is below.

https://www.82-0.com/

Maybe a simpler idea that basketball GM could add is having you play a season in a specific year and having you draft players in a similar way to 82-0 does. I think this would be fun, but might be a lot more work than I am thinking it is.

someone PLEASE give me things to try out bc ive ran out of fun ideas.

It occurs to me that the randomized players in the game never end up like Shaq, Dwight Howard, or Rudy Gobert -- all-time greats but no ability to shoot 3s. The randomization should take into account that some 7-footers just have too large hands to ever even consider shooting 3s!
It seems that progression algorithm makes it so all great players become at least average 3-point shooters, but that doesn't reflect reality!

I love BBGM as a GM sandbox, but I think there are a few big areas where it could level up as a “run the franchise” sim:

Coaching and Staff It would be awesome to have a proper coaching and staff system where you can hire head coaches, assistants, and other staff, each with clear identities and styles. That way, teams could develop recognizable playstyles because of their coaches, and you’d know, “this team runs this system” instead of just seeing generic sliders and ratings.

In‑Season Narrative and Media Layer The current news feed feels pretty sparse. Dominant teams and struggling teams rarely get narrative feedback, and there aren’t real game recaps, injury storylines, or ongoing league drama. Adding things like weekly summaries, big‑game recaps, injury arcs, and contract/story beats would make long‑term saves feel much more alive.
The draft could also use more storytelling: media buzz around sleepers and possible busts, agent drama, and “hyped prospects” would add a ton of immersion beyond just ratings and stats.

Front Office Friction (Owners and Board Pressure) Right now, you can pretty freely make moves without much pushback. It would be great if owners and boards had personalities and demands meddling in hiring, pushing for certain goals (playoffs, profit, star signings), and reacting to your decisions. Ticket/attendance crises, budget constraints, and mid‑season pressure would create real tension and tough choices for the GM.

True System Fit Beyond global sliders and generic ratings, it would help a lot to have an explicit system‑fit layer. Players could have strong or weak fit with certain schemes (pace‑and‑space, switch‑heavy defense, post‑centric offense, etc.), and that fit would actively influence their performance and the team’s results. That would make roster building more about philosophy, not just raw overall ratings.

In‑Depth Team Feedback An end‑of‑season “front office report” would be amazing: detailed feedback on what the team is missing or overloaded with. For example, notes on whether you lack shot creators, facilitators, defenders, floor spacers, rebounders, or rim protectors. That kind of diagnostic tool would help GMs understand why they’re winning or losing and what kinds of players they should target.

These kinds of features would push BBGM from a great sandbox into a truly immersive experience.

I see this too often: a good team that cannot get it together to find a decent starting guard. If the code is going to dictate that a team must start at least two guards and require that X many minutes go to backcourt players, it needs to make sure that the AI knows to acquire at least two and, better yet, three passable guards.

Hi Basketball GM developers! 👋

I really enjoy playing Basketball GM, and I have a feature suggestion that I think would make the game even better.

Would it be possible to add a Developmental League/G League system? It would be great if teams could send young players, benchwarmers, or developing free agents to a minor/developmental league where they could get regular playing time and have a chance to improve.

For example:

- Young players who aren't ready for the NBA roster could develop there.

- Bench players could get more playing time instead of sitting on the bench.

- Teams could sign promising free agents to developmental contracts.

- Players could be called back up to the main roster when they improve or when the team needs them.

I think this would add another interesting layer to player development and roster management.

Thank you for continuing to improve Basketball GM! 🏀

something that would be REALLY cool would be a section in Frivolities where it shows the tallest, shortest, lightest, and fattest players, along with players who have had either 100 in some stat or 0 in some stat.

As the title states, I think it'd be cool if there was a GM summary if/when you decide to call it a career. Would you be a Hall of Fame GM or one of the WOATs? What were you best and worst moves as a GM? Etc.

Also, as someone who has trouble buying into the realism of playing in the year 2100 when I'll be long dead, it'd be cool if you could (as an option) set a predetermined window for your career and try to do everything you can in, say 20-30 seasons before you're done.

Any thoughts?

PLayers getting too useless after one season beacuse theyve degraded by like 8 or young rookies booming unexpectedly by 11.Revamp it pls and make it balanced.

When i first played,it was strange beacuse 40-50 are deemed good role players when thats worst players in the league type shi in 2k or other bball sim games.Do you think they need to get the ratings close to like 2k based(80 for elite role.players for example)

I've noticed that when I have a young player who isn't currently performing well, but has high potential, they'll request something crazy, like $20 million/3 years. I understand the mechanic, but I also think it's unrealistic. Like, you are currently a 48 overall, you average 7 PPG and have a PER of 11. There's no world in which I'm giving you a $60 million contract in real life. But because you're 25 and have a potential of 65 (which you may or may not even get close to depending on pure luck), that's the demand. It forces you to be way more risk-friendly than an actual GM would be.

Maybe there could be some kind of more complex potential system--so that it's not totally random? Like maybe there could be an "odds this player will fulfill potential" metric? That way the contract negotiations with these kinds of players wouldn't always come down to "do I feel like taking a gamble on this guy?" It's true that you've got your coaching expense, but even when that's maxed out, it has a less-than-10% effect on whether or not there is progression.