I'd also like to make some OOC comments on the pledge posted by GH, before I write anything about it in the Diet.

In my opinion the settlement allocation shouldn't be limited to geographical proximity. Of course certain preferences should be made. But what if a prolonged war with Hungary forces us to take several provinces from Hungary? Surely they wouldn't all fall to the House of Austria, just because they happen to border on Hungary. I think the allocation of some territories a little bit off the main lands of a House will add a lot of role-play opportunities, while keeping every house focused on the overall advance of the Empire instead of just focusing east, north, south or west.
Also the famous German Kleinstaaterei (small states) is much better represented that way. Historically, for example the Wittelsbachs ruling over large parts of Bavaria also had holdings in the Netherlands.

Regarding TinCows comments I'd like to add that although his ideas sound good in theory, I fear they may soon lead to frustration when applied within the game. After all the purpose of this game is to have fun for everyone. I fear that discussions would become a little too intense if the prospering of the own House depends too much on the acting in the Diet.
Of course a small incentive could be given, but I think no single House should control two provinces more than any other House. It's also from a IC standpoint in the best interest of the Kaiser to not let any single House become too powerful.
Your proposition could also get out of hand once Kaisers belong to a certain House and suddenly start to allocate settlements exclusively to their House.


Also, has someone heard of Braden lately? The House of Austria is a little bit headless at the moment.

Cheers!

Ituralde