Hmmm... I don't really think a campaign is worth it unless the winner got something out of it other than playing a certain map.

It's not about a reward for winning a given map. I think, philosophically, you're looking at it differently than I meant it.
(Edit: I should have said, my vision was not about a reward for winning a given map.)

It's about having a multi-part game experience, with branching posssibilities.

You win on Map B and proceed to Map C or you Lose on Map B and fall back to Map A. Attacker's goal is no longer to win a given round, but to win all of them, to push from the coast all the way to the "final" victory. Defender's goal is to keep the attacker as far away from the "final" victory as possible, preferably just forcing them to keep moving laterally along the coastal beachheads.

It's not about rewarding victory at all - victory is its own reward. It's about having multiple, linked battles that progress along logical geographical areas - hence my example of Dragon Valley(coastal start with river through mountains) leading to FuShe Pass( river through mountains) up to Kubra Dam (river, mountains, further from coast) leading to, say, Songhua Stalemate, a partially flooded ex-river area just above the Dam, beginning to fill from what little completion the dam has, maybe leading to Zatar, where some branching of the river and very minor flooding is apparent, but it's far enough above the Dam to not be as flooded as Songhua. Also, the mountains have mostly given way to hill country and plains.

It's a logical geographical progression, easy to string together. Maybe if I had JPGs of the maps I could make it make more sense. I think maybe I'm just not describing it well.