Matrix Games Forums

Hello everyone,

Does anyone remember Road to Moscow by Battlefield Design Group, which was announced back in the day but sadly never released? Its maps and the idea of conducting a campaign from the perspective of a military headquarters have fascinated me ever since.

For those unfamiliar with the project, Road to Moscow was an ambitious undertaking in the 1990s. It was intended to simulate the entire Eastern Front from 1941 to 1945, putting the player in the role of either the German or Soviet high command.

Its distinctive approach involved planning operations on a map without a fixed hex grid: drawing axes of advance, setting primary and secondary objectives, and assigning the formations involved. Subordinate, computer-controlled commanders would then carry out these plans independently. The action was intended to unfold in continuous, pausable time.

Situation reports covering troop strength, combat readiness, supply, and the air situation would inform further decisions. The focus was therefore on conducting a campaign: setting objectives, allocating forces, holding reserves, and responding as operations developed.

After repeated delays and changes of publisher, the game was ultimately never released. Its proposed features remained a fascinating promise.

Inspired by those ideas, I have been using AI to create concept images exploring a possible map style. Alongside the original Road to Moscow images, I am sharing two AI-generated concept images of the Warsaw–Białystok area. The new images are visual concepts, not screenshots from a finished game. They are intended to spark a discussion about what a future historical wargame could look like—in terms of both graphics and gameplay.

Which aspect of such a game would appeal to you most?

Staff work: Assessing situation reports, drawing up orders, and leaving their execution to subordinate commanders?

Strategy: Directing entire theaters of war, managing production and supply, and setting overall objectives?

Operations: Commanding armies and divisions, preparing breakthroughs, committing reserves, and planning encirclements?

Tactics: Directly commanding regiments and battalions and influencing individual engagements in detail?

Should a game like this explore one of these levels in depth—or connect several of them? Which decisions would you want to make yourself, and what would you delegate to your staff and subordinate commanders?

I would be interested to hear your ideas and whether these images spark similar thoughts for you. Perhaps some of you also remember what you were hoping for from Road to Moscow back then.

I remember looking for the Road to Moscow which was for me the early days of the internet. I remember my joy at finding so many hits only to discover nearly all of them were the best places to stop for female company on the road to Moscow.

Anyway...

After WiTE2, which at times I find over whelming due to the detail, probably Staff Work and Strategy would be my interest. Not sure how extensive the original scope was but perhaps to concentrate on one Army, Group or Front and the others to be commanded by the computer.

nice map.
I envision an even more detailed game, with an even smaller scale than *WitE 2*—though *WitE 2* is already very well executed.
It would be as historically accurate as possible, offering more control over production and logistics, and allowing for the command of individual regiments.
Who knows how AI might assist—both in the programming phase and by taking over specific tasks during gameplay?
Perhaps, at some point, it might even be possible to blow up or repair individual bridges.
A full-scale campaign would likely take two years to complete.
...but it would be incredibly detailed.