Overview of Tenkatōitsu (Part 2)

A Shaky Start with Yamazaki

As mentioned in the previous entry in this series, I started playing the Battle of Yamazaki to learn the rules. That decision was probably a mistake, since reading through the scenarios should have given me a hint that the second scenario described, the Battle of Nagakute, has far less scenario-specific rules and fewer chits for both sides. The Battle of Yamazaki is also the only scenario to use the fortress rules to address the siege of Shōryūji Castle. These siege rules feature a small, separate map board as well as completely different combat resolution procedures. While playing through the fortress siege, part of me wanted to hurry up and get back to the more familiar combat outside the fortress. Only when the siege was complete and the losses counted did the fortress rules click completely.

Painting of Akechi Mitsuhide

It seems like it might be tough for the defending player to stop Hashiba Hideyoshi’s troops from easily winning the scenario, but I am already thinking of strategies that would give Akechi Mitsuhide a fighting chance. The Battle Plans chosen at the beginning of the game are vital; the Akechi player would likely benefit from any Battle Plan that allows the use of Defensive Positions (special markers that give Clans that remain stationary combat bonuses when defending).

We will have to come back to the Battle of Yamazaki. I made so many mistakes while learning the rules that it would be unfair to draw any conclusive thoughts about the scenario yet. Until then, we will take a look at the second scenario, which was still a learning process but arguably went far smoother than Yamazaki. If nothing else, at least the first scenario followed the historical reality fairly closely: Hashiba handily defeated Akechi.

The Battle of Nagakute (1584)

Let us start off by saying that the battle results did not reflect the historical reality. Ikeda Tsuneoki managed to secure a solid victory against Tokugawa Ieyasu, while the real Ikeda had his head carried off as a trophy. How exactly did that happen in the game? Well, readers will probably not be surprised to learn that mistakes were made.

Painting of Ikeda Tsuneoki

Ikeda Tsuneoki and his Clan start the map in the south-eastern corner, near Iwasaki Castle. The rest of the troops for the player taking the role of Ikeda’s side (really, Hashiba Hideyoshi’s side) are spread across the long road that snakes from south-east to north-west. The Clans at the far end of this road are extremely distant from Ikeda, meaning that the player will likely have difficulty activating these Clans. I completely failed to follow this rule, and Ikeda’s Clans were freely activated. Oops! This mistake may not seem terribly significant, but it likely gave Ikeda a huge advantage. The Ikeda player has more units than the Tokugawa player; the fact that the Ikeda player cannot easily give his most distant Clans new Orders means that the Tokugawa player has a chance to even the odds numbers-wise.

All of Ikeda’s Clans begin the scenario with a Regroup Order, meaning that the player will likely want to change as many of these Orders as quickly as possible. Clans in Regroup suffer a pretty serious penalty in combat. To make matters worse, they can be forced to withdraw when enemy units get too close to them. Units that are forced to retreat off the map (a fairly real risk) are eliminated from the game entirely, possibly giving the opponent Victory Points in the process. This scenario really teaches the value of positioning. It was fascinating to see the fight from the Tokugawa player’s perspective: moving units close to enemy units in Regroup pushed the enemy away, no combat required!

One Victory Point is awarded for every point of Elan that either player is able to eliminate. Not all units have Elan. The units with an Elan score of zero are thus “disposable,” or at least should probably be used on the frontlines. They can, after all, still inflict damage on enemy units. The player using them does not have to worry overly much if they are defeated.

Five VPs are awarded to the player who controls Iwasaki Castle at the end of the game. The Ikeda player will likely easily capture the caslte within the first few turns. It makes one wonder: how feasible would it be for the Tokugawa player to focus on its recapture? A Battle Plan allowing for fast movement would be necessary. Those five VPs might be worth the effort!

As with the general rules, one VP is awarded per Bundori point (these points are accumulated by eliminating defeated enemy leaders). Of course, Bundori points only count as VPs at the end of the game, and do not make the VP tracker increase during the game.

The final VP totals are calculated at the end of the game. A victorious player must be in the lead by two points, otherwise the game is a draw.

Finally, the Ikeda player can win automatically if they can defeat Tokugawa Ieyasu himself. Interestingly, the Tokugawa player cannot win automatically by defeating Ikeda Tsuneoki; this rule seems to reflect both leaders’ relative importance. One point that bears mentioning: Tokugawa Ieyasu begins the scenario off-map, and does not enter the game until at least Turn #3. There seems to be nothing in the rules that forces his Clan to enter the map at all, making one wonder if it would be necessary to force the Tokugawa player to bring his Clan in. Otherwise, the Ikeda player would not have an opportunity to defeat Tokugawa Ieyasu himself. Not bringing his Clan in would likely be a mistake for the Tokugawa player, however, considering how few units the Tokugawa side has.

Ukiyo-e of Tokugawa Ieyasu, Utagawa Yoshitora, 1873

I tried playing an aggressive Ikeda intent on getting Tokugawa’s head, but it proved challenging to do so. Ii Naomasa’s Clan was able to hedge off Ikeda’s attack, and the two of them wound up in a stand-off in the forested mountain path in the center of the map for a few turns.

Some Lessons Learned

Combat is dangerous for both attacker and defender. It is quite common for both sides to take damage. Some attacks that seem like certain victory can go horribly wrong. It is also dangerous to let enemies surround one’s units; a unit without a path of retreat has a higher risk of taking step losses (units have four steps, from strongest to weakest: good order, shaken, disorganized, and exhausted).

It is sometimes worth changing a unit’s Order from Regroup to Defend and then wait a turn to change it from Defend to something else. Changing an Order from Regroup to Attack, for instance, requires a 5 or 6 on a roll of a six-sided die; not exactly great odds. Units under a Defend Order are also able to avoid forced advances after combat, which can quickly put an attacker in a bad situation.

Battle Plans and Tactics are key. Both sides chose Battle Plans with decent special abilities, but the Tactics available were lacking. Both sides would have benefitted greatly from having some Totsugeki (“charge”) Tactics to use. Using Tactics confers a great number of general benefits:

• units can be given Tactics and placed directly into the bowl even if they are on the Delay Tracker;
• units that are not able to use their Tactics because they were not pulled during that turn are still able to use their tactics the next time they are activated;
• and units that have Tactics and were not activated before a turn ends are automatically placed back into the bowl.

These bonuses are in addition to the specific benefits that the tactics also provide. Unfortunately, it is probably difficult to know which Battle Plan would be best for any given side in the scenarios until one actually plays through the scenario once. It also depends on what kind of play style a player prefers, since some scenarios do have multiple avenues to victory.

Playing through Nagakute still took a considerable amount of time: probably more than ten hours in total, spread over several sessions. Thanks to a greater understanding of the system rules, I had more fun with Nagakute overall. There was less need to reference the rulebook and even the combat resolution became second nature pretty quickly. If two units are fighting in Ransen (“mêlée”), for example, I know that it is a fight that involves comparing both units’ Elan and Masse totals and adding the resulting modifier (either positive or negative) to the red dice result. There could be additional modifiers to the blue dice result depending on the terrain, units’ states, and other factors. Understanding (and memorizing) these rules has made the game play quite smoothly. For anyone else concerned about a steep learning curve for this genre of games, fear not! At least for Tenkatōitsu, the rules start to become second-nature with a bit of experience playing. Teaching someone else the rules feels possible. The final scenario also seems less daunting.

Onwards to Sekigahara

With the Battle of Nagakute complete (at least for now), we have the big one left to explore: Sekigahara. This scenario is particularly exciting since it features a betrayal mechanic. Many of Ishida Mitsunari’s forces switched sides during the battle, ensuring Tokugawa Ieyasu’s victory. It will likely take a while to finish this scenario as it has more chits than the other two by a fairly wide margin.

Studying the map prior to setting it up raises one concern: why is one of the corners so dark? A black hex grid on green-so-dark-as-to-be-black may make navigating that corner an unnecessary challenge. We will have to wait and see whether it proves to be as troublesome as a cursory glance might indicate.

Overview of Tenkatōitsu (Part 1)

Diving into Board Wargaming Feet First

In the overview of Unicornus Knights, I mentioned how that game is connected to the board wargame genre. Tabletop role-playing can trace its history directly back to wargaming. This genre of game has fascinated me since hearing about its connection to TRPG history and seeing videos of some specific board wargames. Unicornus Knights could be considered an introductory game since it features many mechanics that are commonly found therein, such as counter-stacking and combat results tables. My interest in board wargames hinges greatly on the topic or theme of the game itself. Unicornus Knights, featuring a typical high fantasy theme – albeit one viewed through a Japanese game designer lens – is greatly appealing. Which brings us to the topic of this overview: Tenkatōitsu, a game designed by François Vander Muelen and published by Hexasim in 2016.

Box art by Michaël Monfront (2016)

Tenkatōitsu (天下統一) can be translated as “Uniting the Country,” and refers to the unification of Japan after the Warring States period (戦国時代, sengoku jidai, AD 1467-1615). The name of the game was clearly chosen because the game itself is focused on three major battles relating to the eventual unification of Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate. The battles are:

• the Battle of Yamazaki (1582);
• the Battle of Nagakute (1584);
• and the Battle of Sekigahara (1600).

The Battle of Sekigahara in particular is probably the most well-known battle outside of Japan.

Reading about these battles reminds me how little I know about the specific military details regarding this time period. It is one thing to have an understanding about how war was waged in Japan at this time; it is quite another to know who the specific leaders were and how they contributed to a given battle. For instance, the Battle of Yamazaki involved two military leaders: Akechi Mitsuhide and Hashiba Hideyoshi. Without looking up additional information, I would not be able to comment on either one’s military prowess. As an aside, the game uses the name “Hashiba Hideyoshi” but he had many names throughout his life, including “Toyotomi Hideyoshi” (a name that is, arguably, far more familiar). At the time of this battle, he would not have taken the clan name Toyotomi yet.

We will return to this discussion of the actual history of the battles below. Before we get to that, we will take a look at what comes in the box, how the game is played in general, and take a brief look at a new player’s experience with the first scenario.

The Components

The game includes:

• three maps, one for each battle, on two sheets of poster paper (84 by 60 centimetres, approximately 33 by 23.5 inches);
• four counter sheets, with a total of 534 counters (also called “chits”);
• several play-aid cards printed on glossy card stock;
• four small, six-sided dice in two colors;
• two Battle Plan sheets;
  
• and one 20-page rulebook.

Overall, the production quality of the components is quite high. The counters have rounded corners, meaning there is little need for trimming. Some counters are only written in French but their meaning is usually easy to discern. Yet it would have been nice to have a complete list of the chits in the rulebook with a brief description of their purpose in English. Scenario-specific counters sometimes have their scenario name printed on their reverse side; otherwise they can be differentiated at a glance by their color.

The maps have pretty thick creases, making a sheet of plexiglass over top recommended. The counters move acceptably without such a setup.

The rulebook features a fair number of pictures and examples of play. It is translated from French to English and there are a few instances of clunky translation and poor proof-reading. The instances are akin to a handful of typos in native English games. All things considered, the rules are quite readable.

When set up, this game takes up a fair amount of table space.

How to Play

This section will briefly outline some of the general rules to give a reader a rough idea of what the mechanics are like; it is not intended to be a substitute for reading the rulebook. It is also a good exercise to see how well I understand and can explain the rules to others.

The unit chits tend to be referred to as “Clans,” since they represent the various clans that made up each side’s fighting force. Clans in this period did not always cooperate with one another, even if they were ostensibly on the “same side” of a larger conflict. This fact is represented nicely in the mechanics: when trying to have units from different clans make an attack together, there is a chance that they will not be able to fight alongside each other. In one of the scenarios, there are even rules for certain clans to betray their side completely. What fun!

Clan chits feature a fair amount of information. There are dots to indicate their firepower strength (meant to represent either bows or firearms), and two numbers indicating Elan and Masse; all of these are frequently used to resolve combat. Some Clans have one or more lines indicating their leadership power. Movement capabilities are determined by a Clan’s Order (see below for more about Orders) rather than a static stat on the chit. Finally, Clan chits produce a Zone of Control (ZoC) in the hexes adjacent to them. This ZoC dictates where enemy Clan chits may move, among other things.

All Clans must be given Orders, which include: Move, Attack, Defend, and Regroup. Once an Order has been given to a Clan, it can be difficult to change it to another one. This mechanic is intended to represent the difficulty of commanding armies in this period. After all, there were no radios to ensure troops had up-to-date instructions.

Tenkatōitsu uses a chit-pull system. There are five chits that must be pulled from an opaque container (referred to as “the bowl”) before a turn ends. These five chits represent phases during which both players can activate relevant clans. For instance, when the Initiative chit is pulled, players have the option to try to change certain Clans’ Orders. When the Movement chit is pulled, all Clans with a Move Order can be activated and move up to their movement allowance.

At the start of each turn, players roll to determine their Command Points, which can be spent to activate units from their reserves to be put into the bowl. The chit-pull system is interesting because there is a decent chance that not all of a player’s Clan chits will be pulled during a turn (remember that a new turn begins when all of the obligatory chits are pulled). These Clans then must pass a test to see what happened to the messenger trying to give them their orders. Frequently the Clan will simply be placed on the Delay Tracker and be automatically put into the bowl after waiting a number of turns; other times the Clan will be placed back in the player’s reserves (meaning they will have to spend Command Points to activate them again).

Command Points can also be saved to initiate a player’s Battle Plan. Battle Plans are special collections of unique Orders; these Orders are available in limited amounts, but are typically more useful than the standard Orders. Battle Plans are chosen at the beginning of the game. In some scenarios, the Battle Plan is already active when gameplay starts. Otherwise a player must make a test to see if they can successfully implement their plan. The test is a roll of 2d6 compared to the amount of points currently set aside for the plan. These points carry over from turn to turn, so players will likely wait a few turns before making this attempt. Failed tests force players to subtract the difference from their total points set aside, meaning that it could greatly delay their plan activation.

Combat can happen at many different times during a turn, including but not limited to: the obligatory combat phases for either side, when a Clan is in an Enemy Zone of Control (EZoC), and when a Clan is under an Order to attack.

Combat resolution depends on a great deal of variables. A Clan’s current Order has an impact on what kind of attack they do during combat. For instance, a Clan under an Attack Order will use the “assault” (shingeki) rules for resolving the fight. If the target of this attack is also under an Attack Order, it will use “counter-attack” (hangeki) rules. These different types of attack change how unit stats affect the dice roll. Units under a Move Order, for example, will be generally less effective in combat than those under different Orders.

The combat resolution table appears intimidating at first glance. Results are typically displayed in the format: bX^y, where b is the attacker or defender, X is a step-loss applied at b’s discretion, and y is a step-loss applied to other units belonging to b involved in the combat (if there are any). Units can also be forced to retreat or eliminated entirely depending on the results.

A Rookie’s Experience with the First Scenario

My advice to anyone like me who went head-first into a medium-hard board wargame with hundreds of counters: take it slow and do not sweat mistakes. I am playing solo, with the thought that someday my familiarity with the rules will make it easy to teach someone to play the game. The game box indicates a relatively high solo suitability, likely thanks to the chit-pull system.

A painting by Yoshitoshi from 1885 depicting a young Hashiba Hideyoshi

So far, only the counters for the first scenario have been punched. Organization is a key step to making life easier for playing these types of games. Storing the chits in containers based on their scenario appears to be the most convenient approach.

Turns take a while, at least as one learns the rules. There can be a fair amount of flipping through the rulebook to remind oneself of specific cases. Writing this overview is, as mentioned above, good practice for seeing where the gaps in my comprehension are. Creating a custom cheat sheet for my own personal use might be ideal until the rules are generally second-nature.

Sometimes it is easy to forget steps. For instance, there are two mountain areas in the Battle of Yamazaki that provide special bonuses if they can be captured. I frequently forgot to apply these bonuses when they took effect. In addition to the cheat sheet, some procedure checklists may prove helpful.

Going through the first scenario has taken roughly six hours to reach Turn #9 (out of a possible 22). Familiarity with the rules as well as getting into a good flow will most assuredly knock down that play-time.

Combat felt complex at first as there are many moving parts. It was also hard to remember that during certain combat situations, all units currently in a Zone of Control needed to be attacked. This rule means that sometimes the attacker may be forced to make an attack that is ill-advised. Certain terrain types offer the feature called “non-obligatory attack,” meaning that units do not need to make an attack if the player does not wish to.

As far as considering a strategy or plan of attack goes, that went out the window as I tried to make decisions that seemed to make sense. Following the rules as closely as possible took up a lot of energy. It is challenging to figure out where to engage enemy Clans when the combat rules are still not firmly understood.

Ultimately, it has been fun to see how well I can figure out a board wargame, especially one that is fairly complicated. This genre of game is definitely not for everyone. As a player, it can sometimes feel like the game is tasking one with the number crunching that goes on underneath the surface of a computer game like Civilization. The arithmetic tends to be simple, of course, but there is also a lot of variables to keep in one’s head. Yet that level of detail (crunch?) is what has attracted players to this genre for decades. It becomes easier to see how fans of wargames were responsible for the creation of the first tabletop role-playing games.

Tenkatōitsu has been on my radar for several years now. It is still going to take more time to completely learn the game and that is perfectly fine. It must be emphasized that we live in a relatively convenient time to play these types of games. There is an abundance of online resources to learn the rules, as well as communities of players from all over the world to ask questions.

Tackling a game like this one will hopefully carry benefits for tabletop role-playing as well. If I can understand the crunch of this game, managing the relatively simple rules in Basic Fantasy RPG should be a cake-walk.

The History

Map of Japan circa 1582 made by Zakuragi (via Wikipedia)

Some players seek out board wargames that are extremely accurate simulations of the factual events, while others simply enjoy the theme and mechanics of the system and do not care too much about how accurate any given title is or not. These preferences are both perfectly valid, of course. Board wargames are always going to have a hard time simulating real life since they are, at the end of the day, abstract representations of events. Take, for instance, what each counter of a unit represents in Tenkatōitsu: the number of soldiers varies depending on the scenario, but is usually around several hundred men.

What are the objectives of the board wargame system in general? Is the designer trying to make a truly accurate simulation at the expense of fun gameplay? Is gameplay more important? Or perhaps somewhere in the middle of these two extremes?

When it comes to the details, it is tricky when we discuss battles that happened in the Warring States period. While there are records of what happened, they are less detailed than other historical periods. For example, battles from the American Civil War frequently have extremely detailed records which we can reference. Obviously there is still much that has to be left to any given game designer’s imagination. What is the best way, for instance, to design mechanics that will allow Hashiba Hideyoshi’s armies to take control of the nearby mountain top like he did in real life? The solution that Muelen came up with seems to satisfy both game mechanics and the historical reality.

At the moment, I would need to do far more reading about the Battle of Yamazaki, not to mention the other battles, before being able to comment confidently on Tenkatōitsu’s accuracy. With that said and based on what little I do know, the scenario appears to be accurate in broad strokes. For example, Hashiba Hideyoshi begins the scenario off the map, and his troops must march from one side of the board to face off Akechi Mitsuhide’s forces. In the historical record, Hashiba’s troops did rush to meet Akechi and were likely exhausted when they arrived on the battlefield. The player in charge of Hashiba’s side will have difficulty activating the chosen Battle Plan, since Hashiba suffers a penalty which is meant to represent the difficulty of implementing a plan after a forced march. Another general point of accuracy: Hashiba’s troops out-numbered Akechi’s, which is reflected in the amount of Hashiba’s Clan chits. One point in the game that I will need to investigate further is that Akechi’s troops seem to be relatively weaker in general compared to Hashiba’s. Does this gameplay element reflect what we know about the real quality of Akechi’s soldiers? Or is this part purely a game balance decision? It may even be related to the previous point regarding Hashiba’s numerical superiority.

We will return to Tenkatōitsu sometime in the future. There are still two more scenarios to explore. It is hard to decide if it is better to try the first scenario a second time or to dive into one of the other two.

Bibliography

Muelen, Françoise Vander. Tenkatōitsu. Translated by Jean-Michel Doan. N.p.: Hexasim, 2016.