This is the third part of a series on this historical board wargame about three battles from Japan’s Warring States Period. For those new to this series, check out part one and part two.
The Battle of Sekigahara (1600)
The odds for this scenario are heavily stacked in the favor of Tokugawa Ieyasu. Tokugawa’s forces vastly outnumber Ishida Mitsunari’s troops, especially when the game starts and many forces ostensibly under Ishida’s banner are so-called “undecided Clans,” which will not fight (aside from defending themselves) until they have chosen a side.
 |
| Terazawa Hirotaka’s crest (mon) is a crab, which makes it rank among the best |
This scenario adds the Betrayal bowl and Diplomacy play-aid to the mix. Before each player’s Command Points are determined, the Diplomacy phase must be completed. Players each take turns placing markers into the Betrayal bowl. The number of markers placed by each player depends on the circumstances of the game. Once they have been placed in the Betrayal bowl, some of these markers are taken and their results checked to adjust the undecided Clans’ position along the Loyalty/Treason tracker. If a Clan reaches the end of the Loyal side, they join Ishida’s side; if they go to the treason end, they join Tokugawa’s side. The number of Betrayal markers taken from the bowl gradually increases during the game, making it more and more likely that Tokugawa’s markers will be drawn.
In real life, many of Ishida’s supporters switched sides during the confrontation. Prior to these double-crosses, Ishida’s Western Army outnumbered Tokugawa’s Eastern Army; the betrayals definitely gave Tokugawa the upper hand.
In the scenario, several Clans have influence over other Clans. If one of these influencers joins a side, it makes other Clans more likely to join that same side. The entire Betrayal mechanic is an interesting way to address the historical reality in a fun way. It does sacrifice some level of accuracy for a more random approach to the battle. Yet at the same time the randomness allows players to explore some alternative historical possibilities. What would have happened if Ishida had more supporters remain on his side?
 |
| Painting of Ishida Mitsunari |
In addition to the usual Victory Points awarded for defeating enemy units with Elan values, there are several player-specific stars on the map that are worth varying amounts of VPs. A player can only capture stars of their color (bluish-grey for Ishida, orange-gold for Tokugawa) and their positions are generally in enemy-held territory when the game starts. These stars are only counted at the end of the game and a player must have one of their units on the hex containing it with no enemies projecting a Zone of Control into the hex.
Is it possible for Ishida to win this scenario? With a decent strategy and a whole lot of luck, his Western Army seems to have a chance. It is probably easiest for the Ishida player to focus on denying the Tokugawa player victory and end the game in a draw, since the conditions for such a stalemate are less onerous than outright victory.
The Ishida player desperately needs undecided Clans to remain
loyal, with a particular focus on the large groups of units
in the south-west and south-east sections of the map, not to mention
Chōsokabe Morichika’s Clan, which enters the game off-map. The player
that manages to gain Chōsokabe’s favor has two choices for where his
troops enter the map: in the middle of the southern edge, or
in the middle of the eastern edge. This flexibility makes his Clan a
valuable asset. In reality, Chōsokabe did not betray Ishida. In this playthrough, it is looking more and more likely that Chōsokabe will side with Tokugawa this time.
 |
| Painting of Chōsokabe Morichika |
As of this writing, Turn #7 is just about to start. Over the past six turns, Tokugawa’s forces have marched from east to west and smashed into the Western Army. Although Tokugawa has destroyed a great deal of the Western Army, Ishida has made some good use of Tactics to do some damage to the Eastern Army. The Victory Point totals thus far are still pretty close. Ishida has also managed to secure the support of Kobayakawa Hideaki’s Clan (the large one in the south-west
mentioned above), which the real Ishida was not able to do.
As long as Kobayakawa’s Clan remains undecided, the Tokugawa player can do what the rulebook calls the “Arquebuses gambit” and, after the Betrayal chits have been placed in the bowl, declare that they are firing their weapons on Kobayakawa’s Clan to force him to make a decision. The players then pull a single chit from the Betrayal bowl and Kobayakawa chooses the side corresponding to the chit. This option for the Tokugawa player seems to be a no-brainer once they have a high number of Betrayal chits in the bowl. If Kobayakawa is leaning towards Ishida anyway, the Tokugawa player has nothing to lose.
I guessed in the second part of this series on Tenkatōitsu, that Tactics would be especially useful, and that proved to be true in this scenario. An “assault” (totsugeki) Tactic gives the attacker a significant bonus not only to combat capability but also to movement allowance. Ishida managed to push Tokugawa’s forces a little bit thanks to well-timed assaults. Both sides managed to use “planned retreat” (kōtai) Tactics effectively; a normal withdraw gives the enemy a chance to pursue the withdrawing units, while this Tactic prevents any kind of pursuit.
Although they are typically helpful, Tactics are difficult to time properly. The Clan that gets to employ the Tactic must still be drawn randomly from the bowl, and there is a decent chance that the Clan will be drawn at an improper time. Clans can, of course, be thrown back into the bowl at the player’s discretion, but this carries its own risks; when will the Clan be drawn next? Will it still be drawn before the turn ends completely? The Tactic will still be usable next turn, but by then will it be nearly as effective? Despite this challenge, wise use of Tactics appears to be one of the major ways that players can turn the tide of the battle.
The Tokugawa player could have used some of his army in the eastern side of the map to harass the undecided Clans that are positioned there. There are a handful of small Clans that would be worth defeating for the Victory Points. Their small size would pose little threat to Tokugawa’s troops on that side of the map. Yet playing the Tokugawa side makes one want to focus on the units directly under the Ishida player’s control.
While the scenario has not concluded yet, it is clear at the halfway mark that there is a certain level of balance despite the asymmetrical nature of the conflict. Certainly luck has played a role in Ishida’s stalwart defense. At the same time, it has been a far closer match than expected. Perhaps playing solo has led me to, even on a subconscious level, favor Ishida and make poorer decisions as Tokugawa than a real opponent would. But that can only account for so much, since the rules of this system require strict adherence to procedures. For example, once opposing Clans have engaged in combat, the rules make all of the units fight whether the player really wants to or not. Sometimes bad positioning happens despite a player’s best efforts and a single Clan ends up having to fight more than one enemy unit at a time.
 |
| Painting of the battle |
This scenario has felt most like a puzzle compared to the first two. At Yamazaki, the Akechi Mitsuhide player is simply trying to conduct as best a defense as possible. At Nagakute, both players feel relatively equal; it comes down to positioning in the mountainous terrain for advantage in combats and, for the Tokugawa player, deciding if recapturing Iwasaki Castle is worth it or not. Here, at Sekigara, the Ishida player is going to need a clever plan of action to prevent Tokugawa from overwhelming the Western Army. If Ishida can secure the support of additional Clans, the tables may even turn and force the Tokugawa player to go on the defensive.
Tentative Conclusions
Since starting this series, I have been looking for reliable books on the battles included in this game to determine how accurate the scenarios really are. Reading Wikipedia entries on the battles can give us a rough idea that may or may not be reliable, but it is far better to find published monographs. Alas, it has proven a little more difficult to find sources than was anticipated. We will have to return to the historical record sometime in the future. At the least, playing through this game has made me far more interested in the details of these battles as well as the politics of the time period.
In terms of gameplay, this game has been a tremendous introduction to true board wargaming. Hex and counter games have captivated me for a few years now, and finally getting one and playing through it has been a treat. Although these kinds of games can look intimidating, Tenkatōitsu is compelling evidence that there are titles within this genre that are manageable and fun. It takes time to learn the rules, but the more one plays the more they make sense and become second nature. Before long, a player may discover that they are focusing more on strategy rather than just trying to keep up with the procedures.
Most of the scenarios demand a good deal of time from the players. The back of the box estimates one turn to take between thirty minutes to one hour. With all of the scenarios having at least sixteen turns, that means players probably will not be able to finish a scenario in a single session. That is not a bad thing necessarily, although it does mean that players will need a space to set the game up that can be occupied for some time. Some matches may go completely one-sided, at which point the losing player may wish to concede. It is ideal that all of the scenarios have the possibility of ending in a draw. Asymmetrical conflicts make a draw a great achievement.
At the moment, the only other titles that I would like to try are out
of print, meaning that it may prove difficult to find affordable
copies. The list of games includes (in order of interest): Dragon Rage (1982, 2011); White Bear and Red Moon (1975), also published as Dragon Pass (1981); and Starship Troopers
(1976). Readers may be able to tell by the names that these titles are
all in the fantasy and science fiction genres. There are probably far
more board wargames in historical settings, yet these are the ones that I
find myself drawn to.
Although the crunch in Tenkatōitsu has been engaging, it is hard to tell what my limit for difficulty is yet. The 20-some page rulebook is concise and well organized. Despite its relative brevity, I tend to forget rules fairly regularly. Would a more complex system not just result in more rules unintentionally left by the wayside?
It bears repeating that I have been playing this game completely solo for this series. It will be a while before I have an opportunity to try playing one of the scenarios with a second player.
Although this entry marks the end of this series for the time being, we will return again to Tenkatōitsu. As mentioned above, we need to set the historical record straight for one thing. Plus we will have to try the Battle of Yamazaki again to see how it plays with a better grasp of the system.