Just tossing this out into the marketplace of ideas to see if it survives. I'm sure that bE has their own ideas about campaigns, but I wanted to float this to the players before making any suggestions. I don't think the "Total Wins" approach is flexible enough to take account of swinging population, experience mix, and performance. The targets chosen are quite a moving target, campaign to campaign. They also don't properly reflect the win/loss performance, which many of us consider to be a more meaningful measure of a factions performance than total wins - especially exposed by the Loyalists, who in past campaigns have hit the target due to sheer number of games played, and may have trouble in their solo campaign because they can't get enough matches when the population is so bloated. I propose that the progress bar is filled using a different algorithm: Have a tick rate per hour that is based on territorial control. Linear or otherwise, the more territory held, the larger the tick. Tune it so that a faction that holds 8 territories per continent for the whole campaign will fill the bar at the last minute. (Or a harsher scaling would make this a campaign loss, but I think that in Grim Darkness just holding onto what you have is a win). This would correlate the campaign progression to performance, while removing the correlation to number of games played, and reduce the effect of population size on the ability to complete a campaign. To me, it also changes the psychology of the game, from grinding out the wins to a more active participation and warlike approach, and encourages participation later in the campaign to keep the tick rate up. Apologies if you've suggested something similar, there has been a lot of discussion about campaigns and I haven't been able to find this exact idea out there. Please link it if you have, to add to the discussion.