Essentially, what I'm looking at are ways in which we can make our battles mean something more than just whichever side has people left alive. By linking the individual battles together, they start to impact what would amount to the "grand scheme of things". It's been tried before to varying degrees of success or failure depending on your perspective.
As an example, if you think of the "Lord of the Rings" movies as being a campaign, a couple of the strategic objectives were the destruction of the Ring of Power and of Saruman. To do that, there were different operations such as the Fellowship whose mission was to return the ring to Mt. Doom, seeking out the army of the dead, and moving the people of Rohan to Helm's Deep. Over the course of the campaign, you had several critical battles such as Helm's Deep, the battle versus the Orcs in the first movie, and, of course, Pelennor Fields in the final movie. The loss of any of these battles would have severely impacted the strategic goals and would have required changing approaches(flying eagles dropping the ring into the volcano, anyone?
![devil :devil:](./images/smilies/icon21.gif)
Is this something a lot of people would embrace and is it really worth making the effort?