bairdlander2 wrote: Sun Oct 25, 2026 1:58 pm
This is the original "Road to Moscow", never understood why the top of screen was east.road-to-moscow_7.pngroad-to-moscow_3.pngroad-to-moscow_1.png
**From “Road to Moscow” to the Thinking Map Table – An Idea Across Four Decades**
For me, these three images illustrate a fascinating progression: from an early strategy game on the Commodore 64, through the ambitious but ultimately cancelled “Road to Moscow” project of the late 1990s, to a present-day concept illustration. What changes along the way goes far beyond graphics. The question is how a strategy game can give the player the feeling of actually commanding a military formation—with planning, subordinate commanders, incomplete reports, and limited resources.
**Image 1: The Early “Road to Moscow” – A Vast Front with Simple Tools**
- Road to Moscow 1986.png (151.29 KiB) Viewed 518 times
The first image shows the C64 version of “Road to Moscow.” The original game was released in 1984, followed by an updated version 2.0 in 1987. The “1986” in my image filename should therefore not be taken as a confirmed release year. The original game was developed by Philip Gardocki and Bob Best. It covered the war on the Eastern Front, combining the movement of formations with factors such as terrain, weather, and supply.
By today’s standards, its presentation looks very simple: a small number of colours, tiny unit symbols, and heavily simplified landscapes. Nevertheless, the essential elements of this kind of game are already recognisable. Rivers shape the battlefield, terrain affects movement, and individual units form part of a larger situation.
I find the message at the bottom of the screen particularly fitting: “Checking German Supply.” Behind those symbols lies the question of whether the troops can actually be supplied. For me, that is a major part of the appeal of these games: an advance involves more than moving across a map. It must also be supported and sustained.
**Image 2: The Announced “Road to Moscow” – The Player as High Command**
- Road to Moscow 1999.png (1.89 MiB) Viewed 518 times
The second image belongs to the later project whose announcements I remember from around 2000. Developed by Battlefield Design Group, it was intended to expand the idea considerably. There was a real connection to the earlier game: Phil Gardocki was also involved in this project. It had already been announced in 1996, was postponed several times, and was ultimately never released.
The difference is immediately visible in the image. A much more detailed topographic map shows the region around the Don and Volga, including Stalingrad. Military formation symbols are placed across the landscape, while an open window displays several units around a particular location.
However, the most significant change was the intended approach to command. Playing as the German or Soviet high command, the player would devise operations, set objectives, and allocate forces. Subordinate AI commanders would then carry out those orders. The plans included a map without a fixed hex grid and a continuous flow of time that could be interrupted.
That is precisely the idea that captured my imagination: I draw a plan on the map, explain my intentions, and watch an operation take shape. Reports then come back. One formation reaches its objective, another is held up, and somewhere else I need to commit reserves.
According to a later retrospective on the project, getting the AI to execute such plans reliably was one of its major difficulties. A convincing plan on a map requires commanders who understand their tasks and coordinate effectively.
**Image 3: My Present-Day Vision – A Shared Geographic Foundation**
- AI Concept Strategy Map 2026.png (3.92 MiB) Viewed 518 times
The third image is an AI-generated concept illustration from 2026. It conveys the kind of landscape presentation I can imagine for a modern strategy map: forests, river systems, settlements, and transport routes forming one continuous environment.
The image is a visual study. It demonstrates neither a finished game feature nor verified geographic accuracy. Town locations, labels, and historical transport networks would need to be checked against reliable maps. The duplicate Kursk label, for example, shows that the illustration still needs refinement.
In my concept, a fixed geographic foundation should sit beneath the visible map. The actual locations of places and the distances between them provide the framework. Landscape, settlement, and infrastructure information appropriate to the chosen period would then be layered over it. Historical changes, such as shifts in river courses or coastlines, would also need to be accounted for.
Zooming in should allow the player to examine the same area in greater detail. A town stays in its position, while additional roads, bridges, and terrain features become visible.
**Four Views – Freedom to Choose Your Responsibility**
On this foundation, I want to connect four views: **staff work and high command, strategy, operations, and tactics.**
Players should be able to choose the responsibility they take on. Someone who wants to command an army group sets objectives and priorities, leaving subordinate commanders to carry them out. Someone who wants to be closer to the action takes command of a division, regiment, or battalion.
For example, I might order an army to secure a river crossing. Its subordinate commanders plan how to employ their formations. Engineers prepare the crossing, artillery provides support, and supplies must be able to follow. Reports tell me whether the mission is succeeding or whether further decisions are needed.
The tension comes from developments that make sense within the situation: a bridge becomes unusable, a formation is exhausted, the enemy attacks a flank, or an opportunity appears earlier than expected. Successes and difficulties should arise from the shared game world.
**“The Thinking Map Table” is my concept book for this vision.** In it, I want to describe how maps, command, historical orders of battle, production, training, and supply should work together. FRONTENWERK serves as my working prototype, allowing me to test individual ideas and make them visible.
For me, the three images therefore represent three stages: an early implementation within strict technical limits, a later project with ambitious ideas about command, and my present-day vision of how those ideas could be developed further.
