Originally Posted by NobleIre
I suppose.. though I don't really see how that fits. It fits in that it is a system wherein the 'powerful' would be able to obtain temporary 'status' reflecting their power (as long as they could hold it against others), however, it isn't a system of control. The person with 'status' might have some small benefits to production or unit strength/morale, but nothing more. It would basically just be a luxury/frivolous attribute for people to fight over.
As for the other concept brought up by Neutral: that's more an idea of map-based buffs for people to fight over (in essence). Small villages and what-not could be fought over for people to capture in order to gain specific resource benefits.
The benefit would have to outweigh frivolous...Something that reflects power and provides a useless bonus would useless in itself. If the system were to be more beneficial to the most powerful over everyone else in the region then you may see hegemonic alliances....those that ally with powerful and those that ally against the powerful. In essence, the hegemonic system is encouraged and and created with this system you propose contingent on whether the bonus is worth it or not