Every couple months I have to defend my placement against the various nerds I've rustled over the years. The most annoying tradition.
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 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.
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.
