I could see someone trying to make that argument.
It falls flat for me for two reasons.
One, on the steam page for V&V, MS themselves doesn’t describe the collection as a campaign. Weird to me if they believed the collection to be a campaign that they didn’t call it a campaign.
Two, even if they had it’d be a very problematic definition. If any arbitrary collection of scenarios could be considered a campaign, then Ghengis 1, Saladin 2, Barbarossa 3, Joan of Arc 4, Atilla 5, and El Cid 6 could be considered a campaign. You could add up the number of all the scenarios there are in the game, run the combinatorics, and come up with an unfathomable number of campaigns.
How I explained it on Reddit, “five or six novellas telling the same story sequentially could be considered a novel if packaged together, but a collection of unrelated novellas isn’t a novel.”
Historical Battles is a collection of scenarios. Ghengis Khan is a campaign.
If you needed anymore convincing, google defines “campaign” as “an organized course of action to achieve a goal.” The historical battles have no collective goal and the course of action is not organized in any way.
Had they stuck to their guns, continued to call this “campaign focused” and called the collection a campaign on the steam page, I’d still 100% disagree, but I wouldn’t think they were lying. Being dumb and lying are different.
But the moment the true nature of the content was revealed, that it wasn’t a campaign, suddenly the tune changed.