Cannot win against Germany as USSR no matter what

unmerged(426935) · May 8, 2012

News Release:

To all branches of the Corugian Armed Forces.

Henceforth, from now on, all IC production for the Holy Corugian Empire will be strictly rationed by The Cat.

Any disgreements? See The Cat.

themousemaster · May 8, 2012

Secret Master said:
If you like shipping piles of fuel by convoy, and love spending 13.2 IC a day for 232 days per brigade (3062 IC days at 1938 techs) to defend that island, then sure.

But before you get all carried away with using HARM for island defense, consider that a 1938 BB costs 8.850 IC a day for 691 days (6115.35 IC days at 1938 techs), you could either build a single 4x HARM division to defend the island, or build 2 BBs to defend the island.

The BBs cost no officers, while the HARM needs 100 per brigade. They are roughly comparable in techs and doctrines, although the HARM can upgrade fully while the BB is stuck with hull, engines, and guns.

I think I know which one I would prefer to have defending Pearl Harbor, myself.

Actually, depending on the nation (and it's available resources), I prefer a combo like 2xHARM 1xSHARM 2xAA. Quite the Marine deterrant.

Not for Pearl Harbor though. USA has more than enough ability to make a gigantic navy to handle it. Something like Germany, who's navy can't stand up against USA or UK (at least not during the period where holding this island is important). Bermuda is my personal favorite home for this division. Tanks on the beach, baby ;p

Beagá · May 8, 2012

Ok so let´s not spend that much IC

What about the purges? I´m trying to go the nice Stalin route however I´ve noticed that the pathethic NU might be a problem. Also, not only chances of surrender will be bigger but also I couldn´t aprove some laws, leaving me stuck with lower IC for quite some time, and increasing NU takes AGES.

unmerged(47028) · May 8, 2012

Secret Master said:
Dumb divisions:
Attaching anything to MTN. Leave it pure.

Stacking other brigades with HARM. HARM, in terms of firepower, isn't that much better than ARM (and it's slow as Christmas), but it's softness is so low that it works best when it is by itself. Trust me; keep it pure.

Interestingly enough in my latest Numbers Aren't everything I have experienced that ARM+MNT is better at attacking hill than 2MNT. Combined arms compensate terrain loss and due to decreased softness and ARM stats ARM+MNT has much better firepower and toughness. Attacking Mountains is a bit different matter but I will analyse this in the next update.

HARM could be also considered as good option for adding it to even simple INF. I have not tested it but two CA units 2HARM+2INF are probably better than 4HARM and 4INF.

themousemaster · May 8, 2012

mnplastic said:
Interestingly enough in my latest Numbers Aren't everything I have experienced that ARM+MNT is better at attacking hill than 2MNT. Combined arms compensate terrain loss and due to decreased softness and ARM stats ARM+MNT has much better firepower and toughness. Attacking Mountains is a bit different matter but I will analyse this in the next update.

HARM could be also considered as good option for adding it to even simple INF. I have not tested it but two CA units 2HARM+2INF are probably better than 4HARM and 4INF.

Interesting find on the MTN... though what is the cost of an ARM to a MTN? As in, 1xARM 1xMTN might beat 2xMTN, but would 1xARM 1xMTN beat 3xMTN?

Also, Yes, HARM + INF in 2by2's would do more "damage" than 4xHARM and 4xINF. That's frequent knowledge; the point is that 4xHARM will, aside from dedicated anti-tank weapons, be nearly immortal. It doesn't matter if it takes extra days to punch through somewhere, if the enemy's counter-fire during that time is just muffing paint jobs.

Secret Master · May 8, 2012

mnplastic said:
Interestingly enough in my latest Numbers Aren't everything I have experienced that ARM+MNT is better at attacking hill than 2MNT.

Agree. But I wouldn't waste MTN to attack just hills anyway. INF/ARTY can do that just fine.

Combined arms compensate terrain loss and due to decreased softness and ARM stats ARM+MNT has much better firepower and toughness.

Yes, the CA bonus can do that, as well as mitigate out of supply penalties (why you get the CA bonus when you have little or no fuel is a mystery to me). But if you put ARM and MTN together, we're talking about a formation that now needs fuel. And that ARM is wasting all its wonderful speed hanging out with a bunch of mountaineers. Doesn't it have something better it could be doing? Like running armored warfare on the plains?

HARM could be also considered as good option for adding it to even simple INF. I have not tested it but two CA units 2HARM+2INF are probably better than 4HARM and 4INF.

Well, I wouldn't use 4xINF anyway.

It's not a completely stupid formation, but it can certainly be optimized a lot more.

Here's the thing about HARM with INF. Let's look at SA values first (all values are 1941).

A HARM brigade has an SA of 6.33.

An INF brigade has an SA of 4.4.

An ARTY brigade has an SA of 6.

Okay, let's build some divisions.

4xHARM has a width of 4 and a total SA of 25.32 (6.33 SA per width)
4xINF has a width of 4 and a total SA of 17.6. (4.4 SA per width)

HARM doesn't give that much more firepower than the INF division, but the softness (10%) versus the iNF (100%) means it takes less damage from most non-armored units in the game. If they didn't bring TDs, ATs, or CAS to the party, the HARM bulldozes INF out of the way (it takes so little damage from INF/ARTY divisions as they engage in combat), but it does it expensively. In terms of IC/days versus SA, INF wins. In terms of logistics, INF wins. But the pure HARM division doesn't really care about your SA as it slowly, inexorably moves through the province on attack or holds the province on defense.

Pure HARM also gets hard on soft bonuses in combat, killing more ORG on those soft units. How important this is in the big scheme of things (given HARM's other attributes in this kind of warfare) is open to discussion.

Now let's look at INF/ARTY.

My standard 2xINF/2xARTY division has a total SA of 20.8. (10.4 SA per width)

This division is WAY ahead on terms of concentration of force. If you are only looking at inflicting damage on soft units, this division hurts soft units way more than either of the other divisions when used in stacks.

Again, HARM has a little more per division, but the INF/ARTY division is even more cost efficient for that SA. It still wins in terms of logistics over HARM, but again the softness is the big factor here. HARM has low softness, while INF/ARTY has 100% softness. Again, the HARM is an expensive way to achieve certain kinds of results. The INF/ARTY division blows away other divisions through superior firepower. HARM turtles it's way through combat with soft units, laughing off damage that would seriously threaten the INF/ARTY division.

What about INF/HARM?

2xHARM/2xINF gets the combined arms bonus (let's be generous and assume the additional bonus to CA from the appropriate doctrine) and has a total SA of 27.898 (6.9745 per width).

Even with the CA bonus, this division still has less SA per width than INF/ARTY! It also only has a softness of 55%. That means that this formation, while CA, does not get hard on soft. It uses fuel and more supplies than INF/ARTY, and it was way more expensive.

What about HA?

4xINF has a HA of 6.88 (1.67 per width).
4xHARM has a HA of 29 (7.25 per width).
An ARTY brigade as a HA of 1.6 per brigade.

Unsurprisingly, HARM comes out on top in all categories here. a 4xHARM division has 4.2 times the HA of a 4xINF division OR an INF/ARTY division. The INF/ARTY division has weak HA even when looking at width. HARM still has twice as much HA per width as the INF/ARTY formation.

What about INF/HARM?

2xHARM/2xINF has an HA of 23.192. (5.798 HA per width) Assumes combined arms bonus

This division can fight armor more effectively, but it still sucks compared to 4xHARM.

What about other ways of getting the CA bonus with INF?

Let's try INF/TD.

Each TD brigade has 2 SA and 7.2 HA at 1941 techs. It has zero width.

2xINF/2xTD has a total SA of 16.64 (8.32 SA per width) with the CA bonus (including the extra CA from doctrine).
It has a total HA of 23.062 (11.531 HA per width) with the CA bonus.

This formation has better SA per width and way better HA per width than the HARM/INF division. It costs less, still gets the CA bonus, uses less supplies and fuel, and can be built using starting techs for some countries in 1936. It's even cheaper to upgrade in terms of both leadership and IC cost. It's more expensive than using AT brigades, but you lose the CA bonus there, resulting in overall less efficiency.

Basically, I can't see any advantage to stacking HARM with other brigades in a division. Every other division configuration either has comparable firepower for less IC or has better SA/HA per width. Putting HARM with other brigades in a division just dilutes its only real advantage: softness.

unmerged(47028) · May 9, 2012

Secret Master said:
Agree. But I wouldn't waste MTN to attack just hills anyway. INF/ARTY can do that just fine.

So why would you need MTN is INF/ARTY can do it?

Secret Master said:
And that ARM is wasting all its wonderful speed hanging out with a bunch of mountaineers. Doesn't it have something better it could be doing? Like running armored warfare on the plains?

Why would you need speed if like in my AAR you cannot pass hills and mountains and them across rivers into hill or mountains and especially if you are facing armour?

The beauty of it is that you make combined arms with divisions not just brigades. You can build general units and try to fit them in all situations or you can build some special ones and shine in sectors you want.

Secret Master said:
HARM doesn't give that much more firepower than the INF division, but the softness (10%) versus the iNF (100%) means it takes less damage from most non-armored units in the game. If they didn't bring TDs, ATs, or CAS to the party, the HARM bulldozes INF out of the way (it takes so little damage from INF/ARTY divisions as they engage in combat), but it does it expensively.

Bulldozes infantry if there are no obstacles.

Secret Master said:
In terms of IC/days versus SA, INF wins. In terms of logistics, INF wins. But the pure HARM division doesn't really care about your SA as it slowly, inexorably moves through the province on attack or holds the province on defense.

The problem is I never saw HARM moving from one province to another non stop.

Secret Master said:
Now let's look at INF/ARTY.

My standard 2xINF/2xARTY division has a total SA of 20.8. (10.4 SA per width)

This division is WAY ahead on terms of concentration of force. If you are only looking at inflicting damage on soft units, this division hurts soft units way more than either of the other divisions when used in stacks.

In theory and in tactical area I agree but in whole campaign I was never convinced that it has any significant advantage, at least against AI.

In NANE AAR, Poland were defeated by 40 brigades (or 10 4 brigades divisions) in 16 days. None of them were ART. It means that the rest of divisions have no military value. ART would have slowed the campaign.

France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium were defeated by 125 brigades (or 31 4 brigades divisions) in 50 days. ART was used mostly for the defensive line. Extensive use of ART would have slowed the campaign.

Yugoslavia - 5 divisions in 32 days. There was no real need for ART. ART would have slowed the campaign.

The Soviet Union - 239 brigades (or 60 4 brigade divisions) in 144 days. Only 12 ART were involved. The question is would much more ART make significant difference? I would have destroyed some pockets definitely faster but in overall they have little value. Using them for pocket reduction is probably the best way at least when you play Germany.

unmerged(47028) · May 9, 2012

Now if we talk about the USSR then we have to keep in mind that German units have 20% increase in HA and SA for the first 5 months of the war against the USSR and they recover Org much faster too. 2INF+2ART lose their Org very fast due to low defense and low ART Org.

Building 4INF is cheaper and faster, and requires less supplies, leaders, and 4 less techs.

Secret Master · May 9, 2012

mnplastic said:
So why would you need MTN is INF/ARTY can do it?

I wouldn't use MTN in hills. Unless I'm trying to storm the Alps, Caucuses, Rockies, or some godforsaken tundra somewhere (MTN gets bonuses there) or any other mountain range I am forgetting. I'd just use a regular division in hills and accept the penalties.

Why would you need speed if like in my AAR you cannot pass hills and mountains and them across rivers into hill or mountains and especially if you are facing armour?

If the the only thing you care about is the CA bonus, and if you are facing any significant enemy armor, then why use ARM to get the CA bonus? You can cut width down and use TDs. TDs are cheaper and give plenty of HA for killing off enemy armor. And I think their penalties in attacking bad terrain are as bad as ARM. And defending, who cares?

The beauty of it is that you make combined arms with divisions not just brigades. You can build general units and try to fit them in all situations or you can build some special ones and shine in sectors you want.

Exactly. ARM uses up width, so I want it spearheading assaults with SPARTY backing it up. TDs can give me the CA bonus even with slow units like INF for cheaper and less width than the ARM.

And as I've been saying all along, use your MTN in mountains. Keep it pure. Don't build 80 brigades of MTN and then use them outside of the mountains. Too many officers for that to be a good idea (not counting IC cost and techs)

Bulldozes infantry if there are no obstacles.

Right. That's it's only advantage. If you are trying to cross a river, get some ENG or MAR or something else. Forest? Get something else. City? Get something else (MIL has nice city fighting bonuses for those wondering). Marsh? Seriously, get something else.

The problem is I never saw HARM moving from one province to another non stop.

It's even worse for MIL/TD divisions walking along at 3 kph. Trust me on that if you don't feel like examining my rather absurd experiment in combined arms warfare.

But combat movement is a real thing in the game, and truly stubborn provinces can be taken by just pushing the defenders completely out. But if you want speed, then you shouldn't be using HARM. There is a difference between "I want the tip of the spear to break the line" and "I want divisions with speed to move into the breakthrough zone." If the HARM has broken the backs of a defending force, and you send in ARM/SPART ahead of them, the ARM/SPART can start a low level exploitation by breaking up the divisions attempting to shore up the breakthrough.

In theory and in tactical area I agree but in whole campaign I was never convinced that it has any significant advantage, at least against AI.

In NANE AAR, Poland were defeated by 40 brigades (or 10 4 brigades divisions) in 16 days. None of them were ART. It means that the rest of divisions have no military value. ART would have slowed the campaign.

France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium were defeated by 125 brigades (or 31 4 brigades divisions) in 50 days. ART was used mostly for the defensive line. Extensive use of ART would have slowed the campaign.

Yugoslavia - 5 divisions in 32 days. There was no real need for ART. ART would have slowed the campaign.

The Soviet Union - 239 brigades (or 60 4 brigade divisions) in 144 days. Only 12 ART were involved. The question is would much more ART make significant difference? I would have destroyed some pockets definitely faster but in overall they have little value. Using them for pocket reduction is probably the best way at least when you play Germany.

I'm confused.

Did you just have purely mobile and armored units and use speed to your advantage? How could ART have slowed the campaign down? It has the same speed as INF.

As for the Soviets, who cares about the German bonus for the first few months of the war? Even a bad player like me can stonewall the Germans with crappy MIL/ARTY divisions along the rivers and marshes on the pre-war Polish/Soviet border. Stopping them there is a) better than the historical outcome and b) the strategically smart move if you aren't ready to invade Germany from day 1 of Barbarossa. If MIL/ARTY can hold that line, I'm not sure where you would be worried about the defensiveness of INF/ARTY.

Yeah, the INF/ARTY division does de-ORG a bit faster. And yes, it does have worse terrain penalties. But unless it's attacking into really stupid terrain (a mountain/river combo, amphibious assault, or something hideous like that), that additional firepower can hurt and de-ORG the enemy very efficiently. If defensiveness and toughness had more impact on gameplay, I would stack them alot more in division builds. But no matter what techs you have, SA and HA are always higher than defensiveness and toughness. In combat, a division will always run out of defensiveness and toughness long before a comparable tech enemy runs out of attacks. Since each point of defensiveness/toughness (depending on whether you are attacking or defending) is used up defending against a point of attack when attacks are computed, all divisions end up getting hit with SA and HA that they have no defensiveness or toughness with which to mitigate it. If you stack more SA than the enemy, you might lose a few points of toughness or defensiveness, but you gain so many more points of SA you kill him more than the additional damage you sustain.

It means accepting higher reinforcement costs; however, since ARTY uses less manpower than INF, you aren't burning more manpower per battle, just IC. And you are winning more battles.

themousemaster · May 9, 2012

SM, I like all the numbers of HA, INF, HA/INF, and INF/ART.

But if you are going to go for completeness, I think you should throw the HARM/ART in there. Kinda unfair to give INF a 2-front division, without a HARM 2-front to compare against.

Secret Master · May 9, 2012

Well, HARM could be stacked with SPARTY or ARTY to get the CA bonus and reduce width. But I'm tired right now and don't feel like running the numbers because I wouldn't advocate for that division (wrong softness) and neither did mnplastic.

The real 2-width HARM division would be 2xHARM/2xSHARM. I might run those numbers later if someone doesn't beat me to it. But I can already tell you it fails in SA and HA per IC day because SHARM has worse SA at 1943 techs (first tech available) than HARM does and the additional HA isn't that great compared to TDs getting the CA bonus. But it's softness would be 7.5%.

unmerged(47028) · May 9, 2012

Secret Master said:
If the the only thing you care about is the CA bonus, and if you are facing any significant enemy armor, then why use ARM to get the CA bonus? You can cut width down and use TDs. TDs are cheaper and give plenty of HA for killing off enemy armor. And I think their penalties in attacking bad terrain are as bad as ARM. And defending, who cares?

You see TDs practicly don't have SA and AI armoured divisions are at least 50% soft. That means half of the time TDs have no value. The same with artillery just other way round. ARM is basically combined ART+TD just with 20% softness while ART+TD does not provide CA bonus for 2INF or MNT.

Secret Master said:
And as I've been saying all along, use your MTN in mountains. Keep it pure. Don't build 80 brigades of MTN and then use them outside of the mountains. Too many officers for that to be a good idea (not counting IC cost and techs)

I agree that there is no point of having 80 MNT brigades but having enough for certain operations is very usefull. Attaching some ARM to them when necessary is also very useful.

Secret Master said:
I'm confused.

Did you just have purely mobile and armored units and use speed to your advantage? How could ART have slowed the campaign down? It has the same speed as INF.

No, I used combined arms at army level. Basically at specialising divisions and using them in speciality fields without a lot of generalization like: 2INF+2ART and 2ARM+MOT+SPART.

ARM is a king of plains. INF is for the rest basically. That means ART moves at 2.4 in forest while INF 3.2. It is so annoying to see INF+ART lagging behind all the time. We are talking about manoeuvre war not WW1.

Secret Master said:
As for the Soviets, who cares about the German bonus for the first few months of the war? Even a bad player like me can stonewall the Germans with crappy MIL/ARTY divisions along the rivers and marshes on the pre-war Polish/Soviet border. Stopping them there is a) better than the historical outcome and b) the strategically smart move if you aren't ready to invade Germany from day 1 of Barbarossa. If MIL/ARTY can hold that line, I'm not sure where you would be worried about the defensiveness of INF/ARTY.

For the first 5 months to be precise. It is enough to conquer all the SU in SP or MP game

Of course German AI is not that good.

themousemaster · May 9, 2012

Secret Master said:
Well, HARM could be stacked with SPARTY or ARTY to get the CA bonus and reduce width. But I'm tired right now and don't feel like running the numbers because I wouldn't advocate for that division (wrong softness) and neither did mnplastic.

The real 2-width HARM division would be 2xHARM/2xSHARM. I might run those numbers later if someone doesn't beat me to it. But I can already tell you it fails in SA and HA per IC day because SHARM has worse SA at 1943 techs (first tech available) than HARM does and the additional HA isn't that great compared to TDs getting the CA bonus. But it's softness would be 7.5%.

I wouldn't put ART in with HARM either, for precisely the reason you mentioned (HARM exists to abuse it's low softness%), but since the "specific" comparison you wre doing was SA vs IC, it wasn't fair to HARM to not show it.

If not 2xHARM 2xART (softness 55%, CA), then 2xHARM 1xART (softness 40%, CA, hard-on-soft bonus)

Also...

Secret Master said:
4xHARM has a width of 4 and a total SA of 25.32 (6.33 SA per width)
4xINF has a width of 4 and a total SA of 17.6. (4.4 SA per width)

HARM doesn't give that much more firepower than the INF division...

I don't know about you, but a 50% increase doesn't sound like "not that much more". Not worth the cost, perhaps, but certainly a significant increase ;p

Beagá · May 9, 2012

What about other kinds of brigades, like Armored Cars? And talking about airforce now, better to go for CAS or tacticals?

themousemaster · May 9, 2012

Beagá said:
What about other kinds of brigades, like Armored Cars? And talking about airforce now, better to go for CAS or tacticals?

TAC is better vs soft units, and CAS is better vs armor.

In general, however, TAC wins, because

A) WAY more of opposing armies are soft rather than hard
B) TACs have WAY more range
C) TACs hold up against being intercepted better than CAS (for those times there is a gap in your network of INTs).

If forced to go for one or the other, TAC is superior 95% of the time.

Please note: if a human palyer is aware of this, they may intentionally build mostly hard units jsut for this reason ;p

Emperor Hans · May 9, 2012

TrueCoppa said:
By '41 you should have an immense amount of IC if you play it right. Try putting everything except production under AI control and see how it goes, because I don't think it's the game as many people including myself can win against Germany.

I went for IC runs until mid 40 and attacked both Finland and Sinkiang ( increase threat ) and puppetted for roleplay, funny as later I still get the decision for the Finnish Winter War, procrastinating these wars helped me with the 50%+ IC.
So now got around 300 IC base with modifiers that'll go up well and still building and have finally churned out my first troops in january 1941.

jmschaub · May 9, 2012

Sounds like you need another strategy. For one thing abandon the AI, you'll lose every time. The way I did it was to set up levels of defenses. Put only stacks of 2 on the initial border... remember they won't be dug in at the time of attack. The key here is attrition. He can't afford it and you can. Once you have that set up look for any province with terrain advantages and put a few troops there. Keep your tanks in the plains though, but near those infantry in woods (for example). But the main lines will be rivers. Also you have to track your retreating units so they can strat move to the next level of defense. I stopped them at the river near sevastapol for good. Also I do level 10 forts at leningrad, moscow and stalingrad just in case. They managed to make it to the river right before leningrad on the northern front.

Then the next big move is knowing when to switch from defense to offense... remember the AI likes to hide all it's low org troops so when the herd thins it's a good sign to start to switch.

griswolds686 · May 9, 2012

themousemaster said:
TAC is better vs soft units, and CAS is better vs armor.

In general, however, TAC wins, because

A) WAY more of opposing armies are soft rather than hard
B) TACs have WAY more range
C) TACs hold up against being intercepted better than CAS (for those times there is a gap in your network of INTs).

If forced to go for one or the other, TAC is superior 95% of the time.

Please note: if a human palyer is aware of this, they may intentionally build mostly hard units jsut for this reason ;p

In the mod I use in our MP games...CAS has a uber boost to Sea Attack as it should. This makes them a bit more versatile. In Vanilla though....TAC's for the win.

Secret Master · May 10, 2012

themousemaster said:
I wouldn't put ART in with HARM either, for precisely the reason you mentioned (HARM exists to abuse it's low softness%), but since the "specific" comparison you wre doing was SA vs IC, it wasn't fair to HARM to not show it.

If not 2xHARM 2xART (softness 55%, CA), then 2xHARM 1xART (softness 40%, CA, hard-on-soft bonus)

Hmmm, sacrificing some SA from an additional ARTY brigade so as to retain hard on soft. I'd have to cook some numbers. There may be an odd combination with HARM I am not thinking off that might make a better comparison.

I don't know about you, but a 50% increase doesn't sound like "not that much more". Not worth the cost, perhaps, but certainly a significant increase ;p

You're right. It is a 50% increase per width/division. That is significant. I should have said, "...is a lousy increase considering the additional cost and the cheaper ways you could get such an increase in SA (ARM/SPARTY units with the CA bonus)."

Armored cars? Useful when paired with LARM to give them the CA bonus while retaining speed and cutting width. But, bear in mind that LARM by itself is faster than LARM/AC. We're talking a sizeable difference once you get past 1941 techs. The higher tech your LARM, the more speed you lose when pairing up with AC. Since LARM is best used as a fast unit (sacrificing armor to get even more speed out of LARM is standard practice for a lot of folks once they meet the minimum requirements for other units they want), slowing them down with AC to get the CA bonus is kind of pointless.

But if you are running a fast overrun of France early enough in the game (jumping gun in 38 for example), having a bunch of LARM/AC divisions around to run CA ops until you clean up the French, then start upgrading to other units while ditching the AC can be a viable approach.

Beagá · May 10, 2012

Thanks for all the info. I did a preliminary game as SU the get the hang of them until 1940, and now I´m retrying them.

So, the big choice with SU is doing the Purge or not and it doesn´t seem worth it. The only REAL advantage is retaining the Leadership, and since you can´t aprove any decent mobilization laws, being stuck with that -50% for officers means the only advantage is being able to tech more with those extra points (since neither diplomacy or espionage will do much to improve the Soviet union situation...) Theoretically however the better leaders might pay off later, and many purged officers actually have 2-3 skill and decent traits.

The big disadvantage of not going for the purge is the huge IC malus... has anyone won using the Nice Stalin route? How? If only it was easier to improve NU with spies to get better laws... but between increasing party support and increasing NU, I think it´s impossible before 1941.

Cannot win against Germany as USSR no matter what

Second Lieutenant

General

Banned

Field Marshal

General

Covert Mastermind

Field Marshal

Field Marshal

Covert Mastermind

General

Covert Mastermind

Field Marshal

General

Banned

General

Lt. General

General

Captain

Covert Mastermind

Banned