Thoughts on fluff during the campaign...
Perhaps we should come up with an officer or two who are serving as overall commanders of the campaign - not current special characters, but new people, with flaws and downsides. These wouldn't be in-game "army generals," but the command structure from which all our armies are recieving orders. We could refer to them regularly in our battle reports (ie, "On the orders of Marshal Gunther, the fifth battalion marched west along the Talabecland border, when scouts reported a host of beastmen on approach" or "Despite the heavy casualties, General Hoffengruber's orders were clear, but to obey was suicidal: the line must be held at all costs.").
Such consistency could cement the Empire's campaign, at least on a fluffl side, and give us justifications for defeats (ie, one of our commanders is a tactical idiot). Some of our generals would have better or worse relations with them. Oh, and of course, they'd each be responsible for some sections of the campaign - one is in charge of the western areas, one the eastern; those of us on the east of the map answer to one, those on the west answer to the other, and those in the middle could have some fun mentioning conflicting orders from both.
If we run with the fort construction campaign, we could have a third - a logistical engineer officer whom we could blame for being late, bringing the wrong supplies, letting the gunpowder get wet, etc. Of course, he could also be the guy who personally checked upon the Helblaster just before its glorious performance or who deployed the artillery train to cover an army's retreat after a devastating defeat. You get the idea - consistent charaters who aren't part of our armies, but play a side-role throughout our storyline.
Anyway, that's rather long...but what do you think? Good idea?
