It's called data, if you look at records and tournaments that's kind of the best thing you have to go on for making a list, if someone comes out better when the data is looked at, they should be granted a higher spot.
If a regiment won 1000 1v1s and lost none, would they be best NA even if they only fought shit regiments? When you're talking about the best regiments of all time data alone doesn't cut it, you need CONTEXT.
I'm not going to say 'y' should be above 'x' because of something unrecorded that happened that I can only back up because I say it happened
This is an admittance that you have no fucking clue about what the competitive scene was like prior to NWL. These things ARE recorded on youtube and in 1v1 records - but instead of actually doing your research, you completely discount this era of NW (which is arguably the highest skilled era of NW). If you don't have first hand experience on a topic as in depth as the best regiment; the least you can do is not talk out of your ass. If you're actually interested in having a valid opinion that is.
Also I didn't get here after all the real regiments were gone I was actually in 3eVolt in 2013 when you were Col, unless of course 2013 3eVolt wasn't a real regiment
Congratulations Cadet Godfried at a 200 man linebattle! I wonder why I don't remember you?