I would like feedback from you guys about this idea too.
I was thinking and it occurred to me that Population should buy the Communities not the Land Score. Hear me out on this one. Using this system you could have a high Land Holding, representing a vast stretch of land yet have a small Population Holding which could buy you at most a Hamlet or maybe a small town, i.e. House Stark. Yet you can have the opposite, a high Population Holding yet a small Land Holding, i.e. most Houses that have cities as their domains (Hightower, Manderly, Lannister). So far this seems to put the Holdings in line with the charts of benchmarks provided in the RAW. That happens because it frees up the Land to be just that, the extent of their geographical boundaries and the Population ends up falling right in line with it the charts because now a score of 10 DOES allow you to keep a Hamlet.
My logical reasoning outside of the mechanical clockwork of it is this: Population represents the density of the people within your borders. OK, that makes sense. However, what does not make sense is that the LAND score determines your communities. Sure, you can build new buildings and ultimately whether that community stays in that location, BUT, the "you build it, they will come" idea does not work during the Medieval Era. Before the Rennaisance, communities stayed where people gathered, whether the Lord of the land liked it or not!
Thus I logically reason that the communities should be paid through the use of the Population score not the Land Score.
I would like to hear what you guys think about this. (especially you, O Lord Producer of the Game)