On Friday, November 27, 1998 6:23 PM, Jim Cooper
>Yes! This is what I have been trying to say all along! In fact, why
>does it have to be limited by anything? Why not simply how much a
>person controls determines their RP score a turn? An emperor would have
>more influence than a lowly vassal knight who controls (perhaps) one law
>holding. Yet that emperor could (potentially, however unlikely) collect
>just as much RPs as the VK because they have the same bloodline.
>Anyways, if there had to be a limiting factor, I would vote for the CHR
>stat - finally give it some real worth in the game! :P
I think there ought to be limiting factors, whether they are Bloodstrength,
some mix of skills, or the administrative ability of a given age.
Historical geography has some interesting things to say about "center" and
periphery which demonstrate the limited ability of a government to rule a
vast expanse. It shows how a "center" region was directly governed (and its
values dominated) while the "periphery" were the lands beyong the direct
reach of the govenment, and ruled through semi-independent intermediaries.

As far as game benefits go, it requires players to get along with NPC
regents because it is implausable that a PC regent could just keep
expanding, except by placing his own NPC's (presumably lieutenants) as
vassals in their place. The political potential in decentralized rule can
create all kinds of fun gaming situations and obstacles for players. Also
there are opportunities for undermining enemy realms by cutting deals with
the enemy's erstwhile vassals.

Kenneth Gauck