Internal consistency has always been more important to me than perfect harmony with previous invasions.
If you see a return character, you can count on him being the same. But if you see different NPC characters then before, you should assume they are different "people" and may well think and act differently. If you need IC reasons, we can sure make some up. Or you can.
We try to not break the storyline with the previous invasions entirely. So if you care about it, for example, there is a reason why all the blighted regions belong the Daimons now, irrespective of who had them when the last invasion ended. The reason can be found out. It may be important, or it may just be background fluff.
What is important is that we don't just make up stuff. Well, occasionally we do, like when the roleplays get into an area we hadn't prepared. But in general, things have reasons and those who interact with the invaders and in general try to find out what's going on fare better than those who grab their sword and go for it. Though sometimes "fare better" only means knowing why you die.
Our invasions also tend to have "themes". I remember the one (the 2nd?) invasion that had a bit of a silly theme and among other things we had an army of 20,000 frogs somewhere in there.
The 4th invasion had a theme of trust and betrayl, and I see that it worked so well that even with everyone yelling "invasion! invasion!", there is still no peace to be seen.
So yes, there are some inconsistencies, but there is also a lot more consistency than you give us credit for.
I can sound harsh, so I apologize. I already write too much on these forums, giving detailed explanations of my thoughts at all time would result in the writing of novels. I did not mean to say the invasions had no consistency.
There were a few big chunks that suffered in this regard, though, if I remember correctly. The daimons during the third invasion, I think it was, switched GMs a few times. Each time, it was as if you were speaking to an entirely new faction. That was intra-invasion.
As for inter-invasion, the link between the monsters of the third and the fourth was hard to establish, though one could say the monsters are varied anyways, and that this might be due to some missing knowledge. The link between the undead in the third and fourth invasion, however, seemed quite broken. The fourth invasion undead simply said "they were imposters", and left it at that. Again, maybe it's 'cause I'm missing key chunks of the lore, but undead beings that can summon thousands from the dead to fight again for them being called "imposters" didn't make much sense, as whoever they were, they clearly weren't kidding about having all that power. Melhed had also developed a lot of RP with the 3rd invasion undead, and I've heard them lament about how it had all turned into a blank slate. Summoner clearly had a lot of power over the undead, with his faction of the Necromancer's Servants, but obviously so did the fourth invasion's undead, so this break bothered me a bit.
Mind you, if it didn't reset in any way, then people that are doing their first invasion would be completely lost and would find it dull, so it's not a wholle bad thing either. But at the same time, it's less motivating to get involved, especially as the invasions near their ends, when you know what you do or say it likely won't matter next time anyways.
Overall, though, I think that the number of invasions has had a toll on the quality of their atmosphere. Regardless of what you say, people "have been through worse" and are convinced they just need to lay low for a while as the storm passes by. The third invasion was barely destructive, and the fourth was more or less localized in this regard. The ending of the last invasion also felt like a deus ex machina. Many (not I) are convinced that you wouldn't let BT fall.
