Wow there was quite a bit of discussion while I was absent. Alright then, let me throw in my two cents.
As for NPCs filling the map early on, that was after we got 20 signups; I had the game designed for 20 signups.
On any concerns of the NPCGM, I vet any extreme choices. MP2 had the GM and NPCGM being nominally equal, never mind a huge mess over who had the most say over a client - their suzerain, the NPCGM, or whatever NGO happened to be established there. While NPCs do have the ability to nationalise assets or refuse to be cliented (as in it takes more than just money to win them over), they cannot deny a player influence points in the country. If an NPC becomes intolerable enough, players can work together to coup them, however. Think Iran, minus the blowback a few decades later.
I am satisfied to see how the NPC traits vote turned out, for the simple reason I institute traits primarily for the benefits of players. I want to keep the focus on players - while minor countries like Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc. have managed to make waves in the real world, generally it is still the big ones that make the large ones. We have a handful of regional power NPCs, and I think they'll do a well enough job to keep things interesting on the NPC side of things.
Never mind, having to only really give a few NPCs focus will probably be good for Ailedhoo's sanity.
A major reason the NPCGM system of MP2 did not work out was the bureaucracy of it all. Thorvald had to outline every NPCs spending, and then I had to put that in my spreadsheet, and overall it just became really cumbersome. Ailedhoo and I are going to set all NPCs at a set percentage for each spending type, which will apply every turn and will be a matter of copy/pasting. It will be much simpler, and barring circumstances such as feeling threatened or war, the percentages will stay exactly the same each turn.
Or, for the sarcastic jackwagons like me: 
