Real-world examples of Rank 9?

[Þorkell]

How about someone like Eisenhower in 1943-1945? If that's not enough, how about George Marshall or Alan Brooke?

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

USPS is a somewhat frivolous example, but the PLAGF or even the United States Indo-Pacific Command (375,000 personnel) does seem to actually matter. For that matter the Roman army seems to have mad more than 200,000 soldiers at peak.

True, but the various commanders still have less control/authority, in general, per subordinate than a medieval duke has. With exceptions for the Roman army per time period, province, and general state of the Roman republic/empire as a whole.

The tl;dr is that even the Roman army was at least nominally subject to Rome; even though some had more loyalty to their commanders.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

How about someone like Eisenhower in 1943-1945?

Probably. Definitely MacArthur if Downfall happened.

Originally Posted by Þorkell

If that's not enough, how about George Marshall or Alan Brooke?

Hm... Chiefs of Staff; they fail the numbers test (I think), but they're up there, somewhere.

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by TGLS

I wouldn't use arithmetic of rank with business (or business-like) entities. Does this mean that the CEO of Wal-Mart has Corporate Rank 9 (or even 10?). Does the CEO of Facebook have Corporate Rank 7? It just gets silly.

Heck, even using it for Administrative Rank could be silly. Does Simon Case get Admin Rank 9 for being in charge of 400000 employees?

Can you spell out why these would be silly? More "power" should be worth more points, shouldn't it? And there needs to be enough space for every rank to be above or below other ranks.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

Which is fine. I know Social Engineering goes up to 12, and has additional rules for subdividing the levels as well. But 8 levels is the original, and I think it strikes the right balance in terms of both gradation and maximum point cost.

I wouldn't think so. In a sufficiently large organization, 8 being the maximum means that Rank 0 or 1 is in command of a platoon, a company, or more, or that there are very large ranges of responsibility in between some of the given levels.

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

I wouldn't think so. In a sufficiently large organization, 8 being the maximum means that Rank 0 or 1 is in command of a platoon, a company, or more, or that there are very large ranges of responsibility in between some of the given levels.

And? I really don't see an issue there, but maybe that's because I've never played a game involving characters from a wide range of Rank levels. If you're not doing that, I really don't see how the scenario you lay out matters.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

Can you spell out why these would be silly? More "power" should be worth more points, shouldn't it? And there needs to be enough space for every rank to be above or below other ranks.

Well, let's say that all corporate heads have equal power over their own corporation (this is a nice part about GURPS, it doesn't care about structure or titles, just who has the power). I'm not sure about the answer to "Is the head of Facebook or Walmart more powerful?" What I am sure about is that the answer isn't going to come down to the fact the head of Walmart can boss about more grunts.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by awesomenessofme1

And? I really don't see an issue there, but maybe that's because I've never played a game involving characters from a wide range of Rank levels. If you're not doing that, I really don't see how the scenario you lay out matters.

The problem there doesn't seem to have anything to do with a wide range of rank levels. Rather the opposite. If you've forced lower ranks that have important real distinctions into the same Rank level to keep the range of Ranks in the organization down, you might wind up with a squad leader or equivalent having the same Rank as all their subordinates...

[awesomenessofme1]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The problem there doesn't seem to have anything to do with a wide range of rank levels. Rather the opposite. If you've forced lower ranks that have important real distinctions into the same Rank level to keep the range of Ranks in the organization down, you might wind up with a squad leader or equivalent having the same Rank as all their subordinates...

The only Ranks that actually matter are the ones to which PCs and major NPCs belong (and in a pinch, you can fudge NPCs). So just define ranks in such a way that that situation doesn't happen.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

I think a question exists as to what counts as "1 Standard Unit" of subordinates. The US Postmaster General has much less control/authority over their subordinates, than a medieval Duke would have. So, arguably, despite having fewer "numbers", a medieval Duke likely has a higher rank.

What dukes are you thinking of? The ones that I'm familiar with were kings in all but name, but like other mediaeval monarchs had very little actual authority by modern standards.