Interesting place to put Grim. As much as I get he may have put unofficial matches on his 1v1 list (tbh EU doesn't really have this so I dont really care), he was still the only leader to beat 12th. Not just by camping either.
Excuse me, but all 12th will be dead by 9yEven as a member of the 2te I didn't quite know if Mack deserved a leadership spot simply because he wasn't a defacto leader, especially with lines. However, I did also give Zen and Offizer a spot for organization of a large regiment so I suppose he also deserves a spot for the regiment model he invented.
For the next list please rank all 1k+ members of the 63e throughout its tenure.Easier said then done ::)
I'm not saying he's overrated or underrated, just that in the grand scheme of NW I think others accomplished more.Interesting place to put Grim. As much as I get he may have put unofficial matches on his 1v1 list (tbh EU doesn't really have this so I dont really care), he was still the only leader to beat 12th. Not just by camping either.
+1
Two of the 12th's losses were from the 3eVolt. Grimsight is a very underrated leader, in my opinion. You may take that as a bias as I did serve for him for over a year and a half, but he is HIGHLY underrated.SpoilerHe also P I O N E E R E D T A C T I C S[close]
Saying laws regiment had poor leadership is just plain wrong and disrespectful. He led a cav reg with pretty much no knowledge of 1v1s in a season of NWL and actually did pretty well. Law was/is a solid leader. Put some respeck on his nameI didn't play against him enough but I just went off of what people in my regiments said which was that he wasn't good, and in the premier game of NANW, the TNWL finals, he lost. If you can provide some videos of him shitting on a tier 1 regiment I'm open for a change on my list.
Are these competitive leaders? Millander always says he doesn't belong on those types of list, because he didn't like 1v1s.It's not entirely based on competitive aspects. I have Offizer/Zen/Mack in there for their impact on the game and contributions outside of 1v1's
Saying laws regiment had poor leadership is just plain wrong and disrespectful. He led a cav reg with pretty much no knowledge of 1v1s in a season of NWL and actually did pretty well. Law was/is a solid leader. Put some respeck on his nameI didn't play against him enough but I just went off of what people in my regiments said which was that he wasn't good, and in the premier game of NANW, the TNWL finals, he lost. If you can provide some videos of him shitting on a tier 1 regiment I'm open for a change on my list.
Are these competitive leaders? Millander always says he doesn't belong on those types of list, because he didn't like 1v1s.It's not entirely based on competitive aspects. I have Offizer/Zen/Mack in there for their impact on the game and contributions outside of 1v1's
didnt law lead like an hour long match against the 63e? I mainly just remember Ib leading the back and law the frontSaying laws regiment had poor leadership is just plain wrong and disrespectful. He led a cav reg with pretty much no knowledge of 1v1s in a season of NWL and actually did pretty well. Law was/is a solid leader. Put some respeck on his nameI didn't play against him enough but I just went off of what people in my regiments said which was that he wasn't good, and in the premier game of NANW, the TNWL finals, he lost. If you can provide some videos of him shitting on a tier 1 regiment I'm open for a change on my list.
Are you using a 8-9 loss to the favorites of TNWL as a black mark for his leading? He was going up against a really good regiment and leading core.
And as for NANWL S6, it was IB that led the IV not Law. Law led against the 4th, but got outplayed in the first two rounds and said he wasn't up for it and IB took over and we lost 4-6.Are these competitive leaders? Millander always says he doesn't belong on those types of list, because he didn't like 1v1s.It's not entirely based on competitive aspects. I have Offizer/Zen/Mack in there for their impact on the game and contributions outside of 1v1's
I gotcha now.
He also had a ton of extremely good 'recruits' join last minute before that linebattle. If I had more to base him off of then I would consider giving him a spot but as far as I know he lost the only linebattle I played against him in one that had extreme importance. Like I said, it's based on my time in the 63e, 71st and LG and we did not play Lawbringer very often, or at least enough for me to recollect and form a definitive enough opinion to rank.Saying laws regiment had poor leadership is just plain wrong and disrespectful. He led a cav reg with pretty much no knowledge of 1v1s in a season of NWL and actually did pretty well. Law was/is a solid leader. Put some respeck on his nameI didn't play against him enough but I just went off of what people in my regiments said which was that he wasn't good, and in the premier game of NANW, the TNWL finals, he lost. If you can provide some videos of him shitting on a tier 1 regiment I'm open for a change on my list.
Are you using a 8-9 loss to the favorites of TNWL as a black mark for his leading? He was going up against a really good regiment and leading core.
And as for NANWL S6, it was IB that led the IV not Law. Law led against the 4th, but got outplayed in the first two rounds and said he wasn't up for it and IB took over and we lost 4-6.
didnt law lead like an hour long match against the 63e?Saying laws regiment had poor leadership is just plain wrong and disrespectful. He led a cav reg with pretty much no knowledge of 1v1s in a season of NWL and actually did pretty well. Law was/is a solid leader. Put some respeck on his nameI didn't play against him enough but I just went off of what people in my regiments said which was that he wasn't good, and in the premier game of NANW, the TNWL finals, he lost. If you can provide some videos of him shitting on a tier 1 regiment I'm open for a change on my list.
Are you using a 8-9 loss to the favorites of TNWL as a black mark for his leading? He was going up against a really good regiment and leading core.
And as for NANWL S6, it was IB that led the IV not Law. Law led against the 4th, but got outplayed in the first two rounds and said he wasn't up for it and IB took over and we lost 4-6.Are these competitive leaders? Millander always says he doesn't belong on those types of list, because he didn't like 1v1s.It's not entirely based on competitive aspects. I have Offizer/Zen/Mack in there for their impact on the game and contributions outside of 1v1's
I gotcha now.
Saying laws regiment had poor leadership is just plain wrong and disrespectful. He led a cav reg with pretty much no knowledge of 1v1s in a season of NWL and actually did pretty well. Law was/is a solid leader. Put some respeck on his nameI didn't play against him enough but I just went off of what people in my regiments said which was that he wasn't good, and in the premier game of NANW, the TNWL finals, he lost. If you can provide some videos of him shitting on a tier 1 regiment I'm open for a change on my list.
Are you using a 8-9 loss to the favorites of TNWL as a black mark for his leading? He was going up against a really good regiment and leading core.
And as for NANWL S6, it was IB that led the IV not Law. Law led against the 4th, but got outplayed in the first two rounds and said he wasn't up for it and IB took over and we lost 4-6.Are these competitive leaders? Millander always says he doesn't belong on those types of list, because he didn't like 1v1s.It's not entirely based on competitive aspects. I have Offizer/Zen/Mack in there for their impact on the game and contributions outside of 1v1's
I gotcha now.
didnt law lead like an hour long match against the 63e? I mainly just remember Ib leading the back and law the front
He also had a ton of extremely good 'recruits' join last minute before that linebattle. If I had more to base him off of then I would consider giving him a spot but as far as I know he lost the only linebattle I played against him in one that had extreme importance. Like I said, it's based on my time in the 63e, 71st and LG and we did not play Lawbringer very often, or at least enough for me to recollect and form a definitive enough opinion to rank.
I had figured AsianP was a rather solo leader, or at least that's how I had remembered him. I'll do some research and come back with my findings.He also had a ton of extremely good 'recruits' join last minute before that linebattle. If I had more to base him off of then I would consider giving him a spot but as far as I know he lost the only linebattle I played against him in one that had extreme importance. Like I said, it's based on my time in the 63e, 71st and LG and we did not play Lawbringer very often, or at least enough for me to recollect and form a definitive enough opinion to rank.
PJ and Jackie were the only new recruits we got during TNWL and PJ came to almost every match. Jackie came to 2 matches I believe.
I am not trying to say Law is some god tier leader, I don't think as a standalone Law really has a place on a leading list. But, like Waste he was needed in all his regiments for them to be successful. It should be AsianP/Lawbringer, but you also have AsianP/Grimsight and AsianP/Autobockfried. Pick and choose your flavor. They all had their different styles together. I think it says a lot about AsianP as a leading looking at it now lol
Im not trying to say he’s a god tier leader either and I can’t really say he’s earned a spot on this list but he certainly wasn’t a bad leader like will implied in the first postdidnt law lead like an hour long match against the 63e? I mainly just remember Ib leading the back and law the front
It was a mix that match with IB and Law switching off the front. As for who led the front/back. IB led the line and Law at the back. Some of our matches Law didn't lead at the back at all, but Bertrem (Armada) led some rounds and Maplemoose when he came did rounds here and there.He also had a ton of extremely good 'recruits' join last minute before that linebattle. If I had more to base him off of then I would consider giving him a spot but as far as I know he lost the only linebattle I played against him in one that had extreme importance. Like I said, it's based on my time in the 63e, 71st and LG and we did not play Lawbringer very often, or at least enough for me to recollect and form a definitive enough opinion to rank.
PJ and Jackie were the only new recruits we got during TNWL and PJ came to almost every match. Jackie came to 2 matches I believe.
I am not trying to say Law is some god tier leader, I don't think as a standalone Law really has a place on a leading list. But, like Waste he was needed in all his regiments for them to be successful. It should be AsianP/Lawbringer, but you also have AsianP/Grimsight and AsianP/Autobockfried. Pick and choose your flavor. They all had their different styles together. I think it says a lot about AsianP as a leading looking at it now lol
Most fun I had playing infantry was during S6SpoilerSaying laws regiment had poor leadership is just plain wrong and disrespectful. He led a cav reg with pretty much no knowledge of 1v1s in a season of NWL and actually did pretty well. Law was/is a solid leader. Put some respeck on his nameI didn't play against him enough but I just went off of what people in my regiments said which was that he wasn't good, and in the premier game of NANW, the TNWL finals, he lost. If you can provide some videos of him shitting on a tier 1 regiment I'm open for a change on my list.
Are you using a 8-9 loss to the favorites of TNWL as a black mark for his leading? He was going up against a really good regiment and leading core.
And as for NANWL S6, it was IB that led the IV not Law. Law led against the 4th, but got outplayed in the first two rounds and said he wasn't up for it and IB took over and we lost 4-6.Are these competitive leaders? Millander always says he doesn't belong on those types of list, because he didn't like 1v1s.It's not entirely based on competitive aspects. I have Offizer/Zen/Mack in there for their impact on the game and contributions outside of 1v1's
I gotcha now.[close]
I enjoyed that 1v1 vs IV for so many reasons lol
Same with the 3eVolt and 15thCC 1v1's from that season.
Most fun I had playing infantry was during S6SpoilerSaying laws regiment had poor leadership is just plain wrong and disrespectful. He led a cav reg with pretty much no knowledge of 1v1s in a season of NWL and actually did pretty well. Law was/is a solid leader. Put some respeck on his nameI didn't play against him enough but I just went off of what people in my regiments said which was that he wasn't good, and in the premier game of NANW, the TNWL finals, he lost. If you can provide some videos of him shitting on a tier 1 regiment I'm open for a change on my list.
Are you using a 8-9 loss to the favorites of TNWL as a black mark for his leading? He was going up against a really good regiment and leading core.
And as for NANWL S6, it was IB that led the IV not Law. Law led against the 4th, but got outplayed in the first two rounds and said he wasn't up for it and IB took over and we lost 4-6.Are these competitive leaders? Millander always says he doesn't belong on those types of list, because he didn't like 1v1s.It's not entirely based on competitive aspects. I have Offizer/Zen/Mack in there for their impact on the game and contributions outside of 1v1's
I gotcha now.[close]
I enjoyed that 1v1 vs IV for so many reasons lol
Same with the 3eVolt and 15thCC 1v1's from that season.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH0ttWmmQn4
Leading lists are near impossible to make tbh
Leading lists are near impossible to make tbh
For those who have not pioneered tactics, yes
Grim is spot on. Its one thing for the normal plebs to say these things, but the perspective of leaders who actually spend most days of a week, every week for years is much different.Leading lists are near impossible to make tbh
For those who have not lead contending regiments, yes
Every couple months I have to defend my placement against the various nerds I've rustled over the years. The most annoying tradition.I find your inability to read laughable. I have stated multiple times now that this doesn't have 100% to do with leading. It has a lot to do with influence. I don't have to be in Millander's regiment to know how influential it was to so many people, in the same way that I only had to play a few linebattles with the 63e against you to know you act like a whiny girl you are when you get shot to shit. You literally told your guys to spread out 5 man spacing in a 1v1 because us shooting so distressed you that you lost your shit.
Karth is NOT #1 by any means. He relied insanely on hill camping and shooting. He would actively try to get as hilly a map allowable in 1v1s so he wouldn't have to melee. This is your 63e bias showing.
The 12th leadership should be #1, set in stone, anyone disagreeing really does not know what they are talking about
Good on Asian at #3
Cheeseypants is a good leader but was not a contender nearly as long. Also was not a contender at all until some of the best meleers to touch the game joined his regiment. And you cite the 71st beating a Lawbringer reg as the big accomplishment? zoinks!
Russianfury I can't comment on. Waste? When my mic was broken, I had to lead through chat and we still had no trouble. The Nr37 was one of the regiments the 3eVolt would consistently defeat. Waste's leadership would not come into consideration until AFTER the hayday of the 71st, 12th, 63e, AND 3eVolt. Likewise with Russian, but I don't know what he was up to during those days.
In my one official LB leading against AsianP, I/we beat him. (3eVolt vs 58e). I think Asian has a couple reasons to be above me but I have earned my spot behind him.
Millander is one of the greatest leaders, but I find it funny you place him 7th when you state yourself you have 0 knowledge of him leading. Sign of this list devolving further into retardation
The only reason the 1a/14th won season 1 of NWL was because the 12th and 3eVolt were placed into league 2 for some reason. The 1a was never a contender. How can you include Wardop but omit someone like Alexander?
As stated before, Millander was an NANW icon and his influence to the scene is still remembered by anyone who played the game in 2013-2014.Grim is spot on. Its one thing for the normal plebs to say these things, but the perspective of leaders who actually spend most days of a week, every week for years is much different.Leading lists are near impossible to make tbh
For those who have not lead contending regiments, yes
Theres so much that Leaders process when in 1v1's that make or break your 1v1 record. Karth sat on a hill and afk'd for an hour while his guys shot. Thats not really leading. If you were to rank him on his actual abilities which was picking up the 63e from ruins, building a huge community, thats because he was a fantastic administrator who could lead to the ability people expected of him. Tico should go to #1 because not only did Tico have a good regiment in terms of overall skill, he had the leading capability to go with it.
Personally Karth should go 7th, then the rest should move up 1.
Millander is an odd one, I don't think you can really put him high on any list just because like Lurvy said, he doesn't want to be known for that. He was more engrossed by his community which he carried on in the 15e. Not to mention the 1stFKI was dominant in a time where there was nobody to challenge them in NA to the fullest extent.
Cheesey is another strange one, 71st's 1v1 record for the most part was against mostly mid tiered regiments. Then I remember 3eVolt did a 1v1 which I attended, they played really well and then they really stepped into the light and did well for the year or so up until they disbanded.
YOU JUST SAID THIS LIST HAS TO DO WITH INFLUENCE BUT DONT NAME THE 5THI forgot about that. However, I also wasn't around for a few months when that happened so I didn't want to include something I didn't know much about. I honestly have no recollection of playing against Alexander or Ody that much. This isn't to take away from them, I just don't want to form an opinion of someone I do not know much about.
BITCH WE STARTED THE CANCER REGS
WE WERE ONE OF THE FIRST TO DO THE GROUPFIGHTING LINE IN NA
FFS WE WERE THE GOD DAMN YEAR OF UNDERDOGS AND TOOK DOWN MORE HYPE TRAINS THAN ISIS DOES IN SPAIN
I think you seem to miss understand the point William. The point of a regiment isn't just to monopolize the game and see who can recruit the most. All of that work wasn't done by just Karth. Is this not about the leader specifically?SpoilerEvery couple months I have to defend my placement against the various nerds I've rustled over the years. The most annoying tradition.I find your inability to read laughable. I have stated multiple times now that this doesn't have 100% to do with leading. It has a lot to do with influence. I don't have to be in Millander's regiment to know how influential it was to so many people, in the same way that I only had to play a few linebattles with the 63e against you to know you act like a whiny girl you are when you get shot to shit. You literally told your guys to spread out 5 man spacing in a 1v1 because us shooting so distressed you that you lost your shit.
Karth is NOT #1 by any means. He relied insanely on hill camping and shooting. He would actively try to get as hilly a map allowable in 1v1s so he wouldn't have to melee. This is your 63e bias showing.
The 12th leadership should be #1, set in stone, anyone disagreeing really does not know what they are talking about
Good on Asian at #3
Cheeseypants is a good leader but was not a contender nearly as long. Also was not a contender at all until some of the best meleers to touch the game joined his regiment. And you cite the 71st beating a Lawbringer reg as the big accomplishment? zoinks!
Russianfury I can't comment on. Waste? When my mic was broken, I had to lead through chat and we still had no trouble. The Nr37 was one of the regiments the 3eVolt would consistently defeat. Waste's leadership would not come into consideration until AFTER the hayday of the 71st, 12th, 63e, AND 3eVolt. Likewise with Russian, but I don't know what he was up to during those days.
In my one official LB leading against AsianP, I/we beat him. (3eVolt vs 58e). I think Asian has a couple reasons to be above me but I have earned my spot behind him.
Millander is one of the greatest leaders, but I find it funny you place him 7th when you state yourself you have 0 knowledge of him leading. Sign of this list devolving further into retardation
The only reason the 1a/14th won season 1 of NWL was because the 12th and 3eVolt were placed into league 2 for some reason. The 1a was never a contender. How can you include Wardop but omit someone like Alexander?
I have additionally stated that I have not formed opinions on people who I have not played against. Did I just the gun against Lawbringer? Perhaps. Is he even a top 10 leader to some people? Usually not. Defeating your own argument within the argument.. isn't an argument.
To go to Karth, I have him on number 1 due to his influence in addition to his leading. The 63e is the largest NA regiment to every exist in NW history. The 63e itself is a huge gaming community with hundreds of members and its NW servers were massive, most notably the siege. The 63e wasn't that good, you all are right, but it still stayed competitive regardless. Funny that you all say we hill camped but the reality was that there was usually one hill on the 1v1 maps we chose so obviously someone is going to go for it. Are you trying to say you would give up the tactical advantage of the hill, Mr. Pioneering Tactics? This argument is both flawed and laughable.
At the end of the day I made this list to put together a group of individuals who I considered to be the best tactically and most influential, and I have stated in the thread that it isn't solely on leading. It still makes no sense to say that relying on shooting isn't a big thing. AsianP against the LG was always the LG attacking them and them (the 3e) shooting more then us. Does this mean the entire 3eVolt should be removed from all lists because it's hypocritical of its own leadership? Each regiment has strengths and it's the character of the leader to work around those. How do you think the AEF beat the 3eVolt? By charging them? No. They went Erwin Rommel and played their own game by shooting more.
Attacking other regiments for playing to their own strengths is the hallmark of a failed leader. You have so inflated your own ego that you refuse to realize that other regiments have a better understanding of what to do then yourself and yours. Playing to one's strength is literally the point of the game and boils all the way to duels. Should the Viet Cong have fought in the open because the American's didn't like it? Potentially the worst argument I've heard.
Wardop additionally is a person who I put on there because he still won NWL which isn't exactly an easy feat, even beating us in a super close match. Perhaps if the 3e hadn't disbanded for the 30th time it could have played in that NWL and won it, but it didn't.[close]As stated before, Millander was an NANW icon and his influence to the scene is still remembered by anyone who played the game in 2013-2014.Grim is spot on. Its one thing for the normal plebs to say these things, but the perspective of leaders who actually spend most days of a week, every week for years is much different.Leading lists are near impossible to make tbh
For those who have not lead contending regiments, yes
Theres so much that Leaders process when in 1v1's that make or break your 1v1 record. Karth sat on a hill and afk'd for an hour while his guys shot. Thats not really leading. If you were to rank him on his actual abilities which was picking up the 63e from ruins, building a huge community, thats because he was a fantastic administrator who could lead to the ability people expected of him. Tico should go to #1 because not only did Tico have a good regiment in terms of overall skill, he had the leading capability to go with it.
Personally Karth should go 7th, then the rest should move up 1.
Millander is an odd one, I don't think you can really put him high on any list just because like Lurvy said, he doesn't want to be known for that. He was more engrossed by his community which he carried on in the 15e. Not to mention the 1stFKI was dominant in a time where there was nobody to challenge them in NA to the fullest extent.
Cheesey is another strange one, 71st's 1v1 record for the most part was against mostly mid tiered regiments. Then I remember 3eVolt did a 1v1 which I attended, they played really well and then they really stepped into the light and did well for the year or so up until they disbanded.
Cheesey winning that many NWL's is no joke. I never met a leader who was actually charismatic enough to attract such a large crowd of people. Again, perhaps if the 3e hadn't disbanded as always it could have played in those same NWL's, but it didn't.
Karth's influence is massive and I have heard of no other NW regiments to bring in hundreds of recruits every holiday.
/rant
Thats why the video is thereYOU JUST SAID THIS LIST HAS TO DO WITH INFLUENCE BUT DONT NAME THE 5THI forgot about that. However, I also wasn't around for a few months when that happened so I didn't want to include something I didn't know much about. I honestly have no recollection of playing against Alexander or Ody that much. This isn't to take away from them, I just don't want to form an opinion of someone I do not know much about.
BITCH WE STARTED THE CANCER REGS
WE WERE ONE OF THE FIRST TO DO THE GROUPFIGHTING LINE IN NA
FFS WE WERE THE GOD DAMN YEAR OF UNDERDOGS AND TOOK DOWN MORE HYPE TRAINS THAN ISIS DOES IN SPAIN
I think you seem to miss understand the point William. The point of a regiment isn't just to monopolize the game and see who can recruit the most. All of that work wasn't done by just Karth. Is this not about the leader specifically?SpoilerEvery couple months I have to defend my placement against the various nerds I've rustled over the years. The most annoying tradition.I find your inability to read laughable. I have stated multiple times now that this doesn't have 100% to do with leading. It has a lot to do with influence. I don't have to be in Millander's regiment to know how influential it was to so many people, in the same way that I only had to play a few linebattles with the 63e against you to know you act like a whiny girl you are when you get shot to shit. You literally told your guys to spread out 5 man spacing in a 1v1 because us shooting so distressed you that you lost your shit.
Karth is NOT #1 by any means. He relied insanely on hill camping and shooting. He would actively try to get as hilly a map allowable in 1v1s so he wouldn't have to melee. This is your 63e bias showing.
The 12th leadership should be #1, set in stone, anyone disagreeing really does not know what they are talking about
Good on Asian at #3
Cheeseypants is a good leader but was not a contender nearly as long. Also was not a contender at all until some of the best meleers to touch the game joined his regiment. And you cite the 71st beating a Lawbringer reg as the big accomplishment? zoinks!
Russianfury I can't comment on. Waste? When my mic was broken, I had to lead through chat and we still had no trouble. The Nr37 was one of the regiments the 3eVolt would consistently defeat. Waste's leadership would not come into consideration until AFTER the hayday of the 71st, 12th, 63e, AND 3eVolt. Likewise with Russian, but I don't know what he was up to during those days.
In my one official LB leading against AsianP, I/we beat him. (3eVolt vs 58e). I think Asian has a couple reasons to be above me but I have earned my spot behind him.
Millander is one of the greatest leaders, but I find it funny you place him 7th when you state yourself you have 0 knowledge of him leading. Sign of this list devolving further into retardation
The only reason the 1a/14th won season 1 of NWL was because the 12th and 3eVolt were placed into league 2 for some reason. The 1a was never a contender. How can you include Wardop but omit someone like Alexander?
I have additionally stated that I have not formed opinions on people who I have not played against. Did I just the gun against Lawbringer? Perhaps. Is he even a top 10 leader to some people? Usually not. Defeating your own argument within the argument.. isn't an argument.
To go to Karth, I have him on number 1 due to his influence in addition to his leading. The 63e is the largest NA regiment to every exist in NW history. The 63e itself is a huge gaming community with hundreds of members and its NW servers were massive, most notably the siege. The 63e wasn't that good, you all are right, but it still stayed competitive regardless. Funny that you all say we hill camped but the reality was that there was usually one hill on the 1v1 maps we chose so obviously someone is going to go for it. Are you trying to say you would give up the tactical advantage of the hill, Mr. Pioneering Tactics? This argument is both flawed and laughable.
At the end of the day I made this list to put together a group of individuals who I considered to be the best tactically and most influential, and I have stated in the thread that it isn't solely on leading. It still makes no sense to say that relying on shooting isn't a big thing. AsianP against the LG was always the LG attacking them and them (the 3e) shooting more then us. Does this mean the entire 3eVolt should be removed from all lists because it's hypocritical of its own leadership? Each regiment has strengths and it's the character of the leader to work around those. How do you think the AEF beat the 3eVolt? By charging them? No. They went Erwin Rommel and played their own game by shooting more.
Attacking other regiments for playing to their own strengths is the hallmark of a failed leader. You have so inflated your own ego that you refuse to realize that other regiments have a better understanding of what to do then yourself and yours. Playing to one's strength is literally the point of the game and boils all the way to duels. Should the Viet Cong have fought in the open because the American's didn't like it? Potentially the worst argument I've heard.
Wardop additionally is a person who I put on there because he still won NWL which isn't exactly an easy feat, even beating us in a super close match. Perhaps if the 3e hadn't disbanded for the 30th time it could have played in that NWL and won it, but it didn't.[close]As stated before, Millander was an NANW icon and his influence to the scene is still remembered by anyone who played the game in 2013-2014.Grim is spot on. Its one thing for the normal plebs to say these things, but the perspective of leaders who actually spend most days of a week, every week for years is much different.Leading lists are near impossible to make tbh
For those who have not lead contending regiments, yes
Theres so much that Leaders process when in 1v1's that make or break your 1v1 record. Karth sat on a hill and afk'd for an hour while his guys shot. Thats not really leading. If you were to rank him on his actual abilities which was picking up the 63e from ruins, building a huge community, thats because he was a fantastic administrator who could lead to the ability people expected of him. Tico should go to #1 because not only did Tico have a good regiment in terms of overall skill, he had the leading capability to go with it.
Personally Karth should go 7th, then the rest should move up 1.
Millander is an odd one, I don't think you can really put him high on any list just because like Lurvy said, he doesn't want to be known for that. He was more engrossed by his community which he carried on in the 15e. Not to mention the 1stFKI was dominant in a time where there was nobody to challenge them in NA to the fullest extent.
Cheesey is another strange one, 71st's 1v1 record for the most part was against mostly mid tiered regiments. Then I remember 3eVolt did a 1v1 which I attended, they played really well and then they really stepped into the light and did well for the year or so up until they disbanded.
Cheesey winning that many NWL's is no joke. I never met a leader who was actually charismatic enough to attract such a large crowd of people. Again, perhaps if the 3e hadn't disbanded as always it could have played in those same NWL's, but it didn't.
Karth's influence is massive and I have heard of no other NW regiments to bring in hundreds of recruits every holiday.
/rant
Is Millander an Icon or a good leader? You seem to get the two mixed up. Either he is a good leader or he wasn't. If the guy didn't even enjoy 1v1's, then I doubt he was even tested to the best of his abilities therefor you can't really place him on a list for leaders. Put him on a list for influential individuals where someone like Karth deserves to be #1.
Nobody said that Cheesey wasn't deserving of his title. I for one enjoyed every LB played against 71st.
Popcorn noThat's against forum rules i'm reporting you.
Smh when people can't admit that Karth was the best leader of a regiment.
That is a critique I have of Karth; That he didn't foster much growth outside of his guard company in addition to the line companies. I think it was disappointing that very little growth happened but Ray and I both did good jobs with our respective specialist companies, mine being skirms and his being cavalry when he did allow us to branch off. I think Ray just just cared less and that's why the 63e got bigger and expanded more outside of line infantrySmh when people can't admit that Karth was the best leader of a regiment.
He wasn't though. 63e was at its best when he left. Offizer turned the 63e into a respected regiment. I mean, look at the cavalry company at that time. They were able to compete with tier 2 cavalry regiments, because he allowed them growth. Karth comes back and disbands it right when the 63e cavalry was about to push themselves into the tier 1 category.
We lost to the AEF? What?First quote in my signature. It was quite the spectacle in the LG when we heard that one
We lost to the AEF? What?
We had no competition in league 2*ahem* except we tied
You listen here you earth fairy, we were capable of beating both 18th and Odyreg. Also it clearly states on the NANWL thread that we were undefeated. The real score may have been 5-5 but through the rules of glorius NANWL we won 6-4.We had no competition in league 2*ahem* except we tied
u woulda got smashed in league 1
You listen here you earth fairy, we were capable of beating both 18th and Odyreg. Also it clearly states on the NANWL thread that we were undefeated. The real score may have been 5-5 but through the rules of glorius NANWL we won 6-4.i dont think u woulda beat ody reg or the 18th imo you got tied by a trash reg with Knight of St John's first time leading a 1v1 after we were on the brink of collapse from Mockingjay being tired of the game and trolling and also Red Viper leading the first 2 rounds (???)
I change my statement, we had a single competitor in league 2, PSG could have smacked all the league 1 regiments aswell save 71st, 63e, then probably close with 18th and Odyregfinally some recognition around here
This was a fun post to read. Really brings back my memories of so many fantastic leaders I had the privilege of playing with (and against) when I was active in this community.
I'll be first to say 1v1's were never my forte nor my interest. For all my perceived ability I was never good at outflanking an enemy line in a 1v1 setting. Many of my members, myself included, were reenactors drawn to the large-scale public linebattles. We strove for historical authenticity and were far more attracted to large-scale drill and tactics than individual skill. There I felt we performed our best and had the most fun. That's where we found NW to be unique and most exciting to us. If this is a contest of 1v1 leadership I'd certainly be near the bottom.
We did enjoy 1v1 success in the first year of NW when I lead the 1stFKI but that was far more a testament to the skill and dedication of members like Mack, Coconut, Pepper, and many other members who went on to do awesome work in the NW community.
To be honest, commanding in events is the easy part. The hard part of being a leader in this game is putting your community's needs and wishes ahead of your own. The role of a leader in this game is to give their members a good time. Promoting community outside events, recruiting new members, and showing yourself to be a mentor and a friend. That's where I found NW to be exhausting - and rewarding.
I failed many times though. There were times I allowed my own ego and personal metrics for success silence others. Many times friends of mine felt compelled to leave my regiments and form there own. Pepper and IceArmy left to form the 1erPLG. Mack left to form the 9y. In the end, I'm very glad they did since they (and their fellow officers) both went on to establish fantastic regiments. These failures taught me life lessons and allowed me to grow as a leader and a person. Would these failures, rooted in my sometimes inability to change the direction of my community, knock me down this list? I can't decide.
And that's perhaps the core of the philosophy I developed over leading regiment in Mount and Musket and NW. There is no single quantifiable metric to state that X leader is better than Y leader. What are your most fond memories of this game? Mine certainly arent the line battles, it's the fond memories of playing games with my friends. The regiment leader's job is to be humble and foster a community and a safe space for their members to thrive in. I can't think of how you'd put that on a list.
We only won 6-4 because the GOAT Shrek wasn't there to carry us!You listen here you earth fairy, we were capable of beating both 18th and Odyreg. Also it clearly states on the NANWL thread that we were undefeated. The real score may have been 5-5 but through the rules of glorius NANWL we won 6-4.i dont think u woulda beat ody reg or the 18th imo you got tied by a trash reg with Knight of St John's first time leading a 1v1 after we were on the brink of collapse from Mockingjay being tired of the game and trolling and also Red Viper leading the first 2 rounds (???)
and by glorious NANWL rule do u mean Zzehth forcing an 11th round as a melee only all charge?I change my statement, we had a single competitor in league 2, PSG could have smacked all the league 1 regiments aswell save 71st, 63e, then probably close with 18th and Odyregfinally some recognition around here
stfu u didnt win nicole you traitorWe only won 6-4 because the GOAT Shrek wasn't there to carry us!You listen here you earth fairy, we were capable of beating both 18th and Odyreg. Also it clearly states on the NANWL thread that we were undefeated. The real score may have been 5-5 but through the rules of glorius NANWL we won 6-4.i dont think u woulda beat ody reg or the 18th imo you got tied by a trash reg with Knight of St John's first time leading a 1v1 after we were on the brink of collapse from Mockingjay being tired of the game and trolling and also Red Viper leading the first 2 rounds (???)
and by glorious NANWL rule do u mean Zzehth forcing an 11th round as a melee only all charge?I change my statement, we had a single competitor in league 2, PSG could have smacked all the league 1 regiments aswell save 71st, 63e, then probably close with 18th and Odyregfinally some recognition around here
It was pretty funny when they did an all melee round instead of just resetting the round after the OA. If I remember correct they changed the score back to 5-5, then found out Mang was playing for you guys without your knowledge and he was slapping us so they changed it back.stfu u didnt win nicole you traitorWe only won 6-4 because the GOAT Shrek wasn't there to carry us!You listen here you earth fairy, we were capable of beating both 18th and Odyreg. Also it clearly states on the NANWL thread that we were undefeated. The real score may have been 5-5 but through the rules of glorius NANWL we won 6-4.i dont think u woulda beat ody reg or the 18th imo you got tied by a trash reg with Knight of St John's first time leading a 1v1 after we were on the brink of collapse from Mockingjay being tired of the game and trolling and also Red Viper leading the first 2 rounds (???)
and by glorious NANWL rule do u mean Zzehth forcing an 11th round as a melee only all charge?I change my statement, we had a single competitor in league 2, PSG could have smacked all the league 1 regiments aswell save 71st, 63e, then probably close with 18th and Odyregfinally some recognition around here
Mang didn't really even do that much tbf he was not doing better than 75% of our guys. And iirc ya'll were playing North and you knew he was banned from the league. It should've have been a draw anyway since we both played illegal players but they just gave it to you guys for some reasonIt was pretty funny when they did an all melee round instead of just resetting the round after the OA. If I remember correct they changed the score back to 5-5, then found out Mang was playing for you guys without your knowledge and he was slapping us so they changed it back.Spoilerstfu u didnt win nicole you traitorWe only won 6-4 because the GOAT Shrek wasn't there to carry us!You listen here you earth fairy, we were capable of beating both 18th and Odyreg. Also it clearly states on the NANWL thread that we were undefeated. The real score may have been 5-5 but through the rules of glorius NANWL we won 6-4.i dont think u woulda beat ody reg or the 18th imo you got tied by a trash reg with Knight of St John's first time leading a 1v1 after we were on the brink of collapse from Mockingjay being tired of the game and trolling and also Red Viper leading the first 2 rounds (???)
and by glorious NANWL rule do u mean Zzehth forcing an 11th round as a melee only all charge?I change my statement, we had a single competitor in league 2, PSG could have smacked all the league 1 regiments aswell save 71st, 63e, then probably close with 18th and Odyregfinally some recognition around here[close]
And pfft, we beat both Ody reg and 18th just would have depended on who was on for each side
this thread can be summarized with one questionHi you're through to OOF customer support.
William do you know how to lead?
If hill camping is a skill set the our lord and savior JDF needs to be here.CLASSIC jdf right there