Ranking all Skills

Survivability, damage and other characteristics are mostly provided by a unit type. Just like in the majority of the ET games. Generals normally buffs it. Tanks are tanks. They have a key role to deal damage. I don't need a survivable tank behind my attack line hitting like a wet noodle. Cuz that's that's exactly what Rubdstedt on tank can do. Really don't understand Your idea guys. Looks like You review generals and skills as something absolutely separate from the gameplay.

HangryBird, Let's try to make it step by step with real proofs and examples, not just empty words.

Who are these people? You and Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus. Sorry, it is not enough for me without reasoning.

Again. Who are these "we" who realized that? I see that tanks are the most survivable unit in the game just like Cavalry/Tank in every ET game from EW/WC/GoG series. Infantry and artllery even with General assigned can die just during a single turn in case they are not used properly. That's just like in every ET game (exept for the Great Conqueror: Rome where infantry shines)
This combination can increase his attack? No. It increases his survivability. Which is not the purpose of a tank. Tanks are to deliver damage far away behind the enemy lines and quickly. He is not far from non-general unit when speaking about the attack. I will never use general slot on a tank (which is extremely valuable especially in a campaign mode) in order to recieve ordinary tank. 
IF. That's the main point. How can he trigger Plunder supply in case he can't hit like his competitor generals can? Imo it is just a slot waste for the tank general.

I believe stoic is just way more corteous than me. I know stoic as an extremely effective player who knows how to use minimum resources to achieve the result. He can deal with any general. Majority of the players will suffer with Rundstedt on tank.
idk how it will happen in GoG3 but most of the time we normally spend in conquest mode trying to beat one another records. And Having weak and slow tank gen is the worst decision which I only can imagine. 

Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus , the problem is not that I hate Rundstedt. The problem is that in order to recieve same result You probably don't need to put Rundstedt on a tank. I mean using Rundsedt on a tank is much worse decision than to use that general slot on a specific unit type with proper general. That's what I am talking about. Other than that - use Rundstedt on anything You like. Using Your reasons I can put Rundstedt on artillery.
Having universal skills doesn't mean he is good on everything. Normally it means he is mediocre on everything. Especially if he has such a bad mobility which is very important not only for speedrunners but for everybody as we all want perfect completion in a campaign mode.

I'm going to be honest: I don't what to say to you again, andrei ,. You offer good constructive criticism and good advice, but you seem to be fond of personal attacks. I am very unsure about your sincerity. I don't think this argument is going to go anywhere so this is my last response. You probably don't think much of it anyway; it's just "empty words", right? It's not like my "proofs and examples" can be considered "real" by a veteran like you.
Everyone that has told me their opinion on Rundstedt are all different people. Thus, they all had different opinions. But, whether they liked or disliked him, they recognized that he had a unique niche in being very bulky. They recognized that that niche was actually a good one. However, I will concede that it was a mistake to use "we". "We" generalizes the whole board, which is not right to do and is also used to present inaccurate information. It is especially inaccurate because of you. Sorry! I wasn't sure how to convey my thoughts without using "we". I should have clarified that "we" meant everyone that I have talked to. I'm not sure what you mean by reasoning. I thought I laid out my reasoning clearly enough in my post. I can clarify if you could be more specific. 
Again, I'm sorry for using "we". Yes, tanks are very survivable. They have always been in easytech games. Based on the personal experience of myself and the people that I have talked to, we were all surprised at how the unit types were much more balanced in GoG3. Tanks, even with generals on them, can die if you don't use them carefully and properly against their threats. Again, I should have emphasized that this is based on the personal experience of me and those who I have talked to.
Yes, it increases his survivability. I said it was a powerful combination in terms of that, not damage. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Yes, tanks are meant to be offensive and the hammer that breaks through enemy lines. Rundstedt only does +10 damage, so you're right that Rundstedt does not fulfill the role of tanks in the sense of what I just said. But, in the case of Rundstedt, I think his unique role is a positive one, even if it's outside of the norm. I'll have to disagree with you on Rundstedt being close to an ordinary tank. In terms of damage, yes. But in terms of survivability, no. Calling him ordinary is bit strong, don't you think? Kind of like me saying "we".
You can have your strong generals behind him. You can use artillery to soften up the enemy enough for Rundstedt to destroy a stack and trigger plunder supply. Rundstedt will be in the front to draw most of the enemies into attacking him, so you don't have to spend time and economy healing your infantry and tank gens, who will protect Rundstedt's flanks. Judging from your title, you're probably a speed runner. In that case, this doesn't matter much to you, so your perspective makes sense. Rundstedt is slower on infantry and doesn't hit hard on tanks, neither of which are good for speedrunning.  

I'd like to emphasize that I'm not advocating that Rundstedt is the best tank general or that he is better on tanks than he is on infantry. I'm just saying he can function well on tanks.

I think we have to keep several things in mind:

1. These are my images made early December.






Nothing changed since then. Almost every encounter "Heavy Tanks vs. Infantry" will likely end up like this.
It doesn't mean Infantry is useless. It means that heavy tanks rule the world of GoG games.

2. When we put Rundstedt on heavy tanks we should ask ourselves "why". Answers may differ greatly. I explained my personal motifs. I don't like to buy such powerful generals like Guderian. So, using Rundstedt as a Tank general was an interesting attempt to achieve this. Objectively speaking Rommel and Guderian are absolutely best Axis tank generals. I wouldn't ever recommend to anyone to use Rundstedt INSTEAD of Rommel.

3. Rommel may die fast, but!
It is because Ai tries to eliminate our elite forces first and even if Rommel dies he takes A LOT of enemies with him making achievement of our objectives easier. It is like in chess to sacrifice a Rock or a Queen to achieve a winning position. I would gladly sacrifice Rommel if it will allow me to achieve such an objectively winning position. So, my remaining generals can finish "mop up" operations.
Here is an example (I highly recommend this approach instead of frontal assault in this battle of Washington, btw). Rommel's suicidal attack allowed me to eliminate AntiAir guns.





This is absolutely an unachievable task for Rundstedt because he is lacking firepower to eliminate Eisenhower.