8. Combat
8.1 General Rule
Combat occurs after all movement. Combat must be declared in
every location on the board where opposing pieces appear together.
These declarations are made one at a time by the phasing player, with
combat resolved immediately following each declaration. Combat
will be a battle or a siege, the latter if either of the forces is inside
a castle. After combat is resolved in a location, a new location is
selected, until all such locations are resolved.
8.2 Battles
8.2.1 Battle Procedure
Combat is resolved as a battle if neither force is inside a castle.
Deployments (8.2.2) produce Impact (8.3). The side with the higher
Impact is winning the battle. All blocks involved in a battle remain
concealed until deployed. After the battle is concluded, revealed
blocks again become concealed.
The Active Player (the attacker) starts the battle by making the first
deployment. Next the defender can respond (see Initiative 8.5).
When the battle stops, the side which has delivered the most
Impact will be the winner.
A tie in Impact favors the defender.
8.2.2 Cards and Deployment
Cards are used to deploy blocks into battle. Each card can deploy
one block. The card used to deploy a block must have the same
mon as the block. Cards and blocks with different mon cannot be
played together. Exception: Cards of all daimyo designations may
be matched to the sole Ishida block and the sole Ii block. As a reminder,
these blocks both feature a card-shaped rectangle in the lower right corner.
No card may be played,
nor block deployed, twice
in the same battle.
8.2.3 Deployment Procedure
The active player plays a card face up, and selects a block from
among his undeployed forces whose mon matches the card. The
block is indicated by placing it face up next to the main stack of
blocks. The card is placed face up on the active player’s side of the
board. The player counts the Impact of the deployment and adds
it to their total Impact on the Impact Track.
8.2.4 Initial Deployment
A leader block deploys without playing a card if no deployments
have yet been made with a card by that side in the present combat.
Leaders who deploy without a card are immune from Loyalty
Challenge (see 8.6).
Note: You can keep deploying leaders without a card until you deploy
your first block with a card.
8.3 Impact
8.3.1 Impact in general
Effectiveness in combat is measured in Impact. Impact is recorded
on the Impact Track using small cubes. Each side tracks their cumulative
Impact separately.
8.3.2 Base Impact
The base Impact of a deployment is the number of mon on the
block. This can be from one to four.
8.3.3 Impact Bonus
Add one point of Impact for each block of the same daimyo already
deployed (on the same side) in the present battle.
EXAMPLE: A player would score four Impact if he deployed a 2-mon
Tokugawa block into a battle in which he had previously deployed two
other Tokugawa blocks (the number of mon on the previously deployed
blocks has no effect).
8.4 Special Attacks
8.4.1 Cavalry and Gun Impact
Cards with a sword in the corner enable a Special Attack. When
used to deploy a block with a cavalry or gun symbol, an attack of
that type is launched. In a cavalry or gun attack, add two points of
Impact for the cavalry or gun, and another two points of Impact
for each block featuring that type of attack already deployed on the
same side in the present battle. If a cavalry or gun block is deployed
without a Special Attack card, do not count cavalry or gun points
towards its Impact.
8.4.2 Double Cards
Double cards feature two identical mon
in each corner. Double cards allow the
deployment of one or two blocks, both
of which must match the mon of the
card. The blocks are deployed one after
the other. (The second block can thus
gain a +1 Impact Bonus for matching
the daimyo of the first.) Neither of the
blocks so deployed can initiate a Special
Attack. A double card used to deploy a
block that can match to any card (Ishida
and Ii blocks) loses its ability to deploy a second block.
8.5 Initiative
Initiative rests with whichever side is losing the battle (has the lower
Impact score). That player has the opportunity to deploy blocks
one after the other in order to take the lead. Once he does take
the lead, initiative reverts to the other player. Since ties favor the
defender, the defender can take the lead by matching the attacker's
Impact. Initiative is passed back and forth between the players until
one player, who holds the initiative at the time, declares that he
will deploy no more blocks. When that happens initiative shifts
permanently to the other player, who may deploy as many more
blocks as he wishes and is able. When that player also declares he
is finished, the battle ends.
Once a player declares he is finished deploying, he cannot resume
deployments later in the battle. He may still play Loyalty Challenge
cards (8.6) against the other player’s deployments.
8.6 Loyalty Challenge cards
8.6.1 Procedure
Loyalty Challenge cards are marked with
a nobori (banner). They are played out
of turn, immediately after a deployment
by the opposing player, to challenge the
loyalty of the block thus deployed. If the
deploying player can show from their
hand another card capable of deploying
the block just deployed, the block
remains loyal. The card shown to refute
a Loyalty Challenge returns to the hand
of the player that showed it. (The Loyalty
Challenge card remains played.) If the
deploying player cannot produce such a card, the block turns sides,
aligning instead with the player who played the Loyalty Challenge.
Move the block to the challenger’s side of the battle. Count Impact
for the block on the challenger’s Impact table. When the battle
ends, they revert to the former owner.
8.6.2 Loyalty and Special Attacks
Blocks which switch sides do not execute a Special Attack (8.4) at
the moment of their betrayal (even if indicated on the deploying
card) but can later contribute to Special Attacks for the side to
which they gave their loyalty.
8.6.3 Loyalty and Double Cards
A Loyalty Challenge card may be used to challenge the use of a
double card. Only one additional card must be displayed to refute
the challenge, even if two blocks deployed. If the challenge is successful,
both blocks defect to the challenging side. The Impact bonus
(+1 Impact for matching the mon of the first block) enjoyed by the
second such block is still counted.
8.7 Losses
8.7.1 How to Determine Losses
After a battle both sides take losses according to the Impact delivered
against them. Both sides lose one block for every 7 Impact
delivered by their opponent (always round Impact down). The losing
side in a battle loses one additional block.
EXAMPLE: A player wins the battle and had 5 Impact delivered
against him—he would lose no blocks. His opponent, who lost the battle,
had 9 Impact delivered against him—he would lose two blocks.
NOTE: Retreating forces are not overrun prior to making their retreat,
but an overrun can occur after the retreat (8.5.5).
8.7.2 Selecting Losses
The attacker suffers damage first, then the defender. Players select
which of their own blocks to lose. First must be selected any blocks
which defected to his opponent, then any other blocks which
deployed, then any blocks which did not. The identity of the lost
blocks is revealed.
8.7.3 Effects of Losses
Blocks lost in combat are removed from the map and
never return
to play
. Keep defeated blocks on the side of the board, visible to
both players.
8.8 Retreats
8.8.1 Retreats in General
The loser must retreat their remaining force to a single adjacent
location contiguous by road to the site of the battle (or castle
[8.8.4]). There is no limit to the size of a force which can move
together in retreat.
8.8.2 When the Attacker Retreats
The attacker must retreat to a location from which some of their
forces entered the battle (potentially a castle, but not an Off Map
Box) or if that is impossible to any other location. The attacker can
never retreat to the Recruitment Box or the Mōri Box (9.3).
8.8.3 When the Defender Retreats
The defender retreats, if possible, to a location containing no enemy
units, and from which the enemy did not enter the combat location.
If there is no such location, the defender may retreat to any other
adjacent location contiguous by road—including a location from
which the attacker entered the battle and/or a location containing
enemy blocks (8.8.5).
8.8.4 Retreats into a Castle
A castle can harbor retreating units, if the battle took place in a
location with a castle. A castle is a valid retreat destination only for
that side which controlled the castle prior to combat. If a castle is a
valid retreat destination, the retreating player may leave up to two
blocks in it. If there are more blocks remaining, these must retreat
elsewhere, as a group.
8.8.5 Retreats into Combat
It is possible for a retreat to cause another battle (or Overrun). If
so, execute that battle immediately and resolve its consequences.
The retreating blocks are the attacker for this new battle. If the
retreating force enters an existing battle, the retreating blocks are
added to the forces in conflict. It is possible for a retreating force
to join a besieged force inside a castle and exceed, until the next
time combat is declared, the stacking limit of the castle (see 8.9.6).
This would in effect change the siege into a battle.
8.9 Siege Combat
8.9.1 Sieges in General
When combat occurs in a location with a castle, it is possible that
one side will choose to remain inside the castle. If so, the combat
becomes a siege. For a force to remain inside the castle, it must own
the castle, and it must be two blocks or fewer. (Disks do not count
toward this limit.) The side that owns the castle is the side that had
unit(s) in the location first (before combat broke out).
8.9.2 Declaring Blocks Inside or Outside
Blocks can be inside or outside of the castle. The number of blocks
that can fit inside a castle is limited to two. When combat is designated,
and not before, the side that owns the castle may choose
whether to be inside or outside of the castle. If outside—a battle
occurs; if inside—a siege. A force consisting of more than two blocks
must always choose to be outside. No blocks can remain inside if
some blocks are left outside. A force may elect to fight outside the
castle even if in a previous phase it elected to remain inside.
If the active player owns the castle and chooses to remain inside,
then no battle or Siege Combat occurs in this location this phase.
8.9.3 Disks
Disks are always considered inside the castle, regardless of the
disposition of the blocks. Disks do not count against the two block
castle limit. Disks are units that can be destroyed like a block, but
cannot move or fight. Only the results of a siege can affect the disk,
never a battle.
8.9.4 Siege Combat Procedure
The attacking player holds the Initiative throughout the siege and
there is no limit on the number of blocks the attacking player may
deploy. The defending player plays no cards during a siege nor
does he deploy any blocks. Follow this procedure for each Siege
Combat:
A. The attacker deploys (8.2.3) as many blocks as he wishes.
B. When the attacker is finished, damage is inflicted on the defending
force. No damage is inflicted on the attacking force in
a siege. One defending block or disk is lost for every 7 points
of Impact (the attacker may deliver less than 7 points of Impact
in a siege, but the defender will not be harmed.)
C. The defender chooses which block(s) or disk to lose. The identity
of those is made public.
D. If all blocks and disks inside the castle are destroyed, the castle
falls and now belongs to the attacking force.
E. If all the defender's blocks and disk are not removed, then both
sides' blocks co-exist in the location. When this happens, the
side that owns the castle is considered besieged (8.9.6). The side
that does not own the castle must declare combat at that location
during every Combat Phase the co-existence continues.
F. The defending player then draws one card for every block (but
not disc) lost (8.10).
8.9.5 Siege Combat Restrictions
Siege Combat has the following restrictions:
-
No gun or cavalry Special Attacks may be counted.
-
Loyalty Challenge cards cannot be played by either side.
8.9.6 Besieged Blocks
Besieged blocks may not be moved out of the location containing
the castle. Blocks that are part of a besieging force may freely move
away from the site of the siege during their Movement Phase.
If other blocks enter the location containing friendly besieged
blocks then all blocks are counted in the battle. Any battle that
occurs in any location automatically includes all blocks in that
location, regardless of the presence of a castle.
8.10 Card Replenishment
Card replenishment occurs immediately after a battle, siege or Overrun
is resolved (after losses and retreats but before any follow-on
battles generated by those retreats). After each battle or siege both
sides discard all cards they played during the combat and draw back
an equal number from their draw pile. Both sides also draw after a
battle, an additional card for every two blocks lost (round fractions
down). After a siege, the defending player draws one card for every
block lost. A card is not drawn for losing a disk.
Historical Notes
Appearing like dew,
vanishing like dew—
such is my life.
Even Naniwa’s splendor
is a dream within a dream.
Death poem of Toyotomi Hideyoshi
The story of Sekigahara begins with the death of Toyotomi Hideyoshi.
In perhaps the greatest career in Japanese history, he had risen
through a feudal system from the bottom of society to its very peak.
Born a soldier’s son, he made himself taikō, supreme warlord and
ruler of all Japan.
In 1598, at the age of 62, he was overtaken by illness. His heir was
a boy of 5 years, hastily declared an adult and anointed the new
taikō. Before Toyotomi died he gathered the most powerful men
in Japan into two committees, balancing the power of each against
all others. Oaths were sworn to uphold the boy’s claim, and to leave
undisturbed the balance of power upon which he depended. With
these bare means, the best that could be constructed on short notice,
did Toyotomi hope to secure the youth’s passage to maturity.
In fact it took only two years for the tensions in this system to break
into open war. By the summer of 1600, two armies were rallied and
hurled towards each other, and the victorious Tokugawa Ieyasu
became Japan’s new master.
It had taken decades of warfare for Toyotomi and his predecessor
Oda Nobunaga to subjugate Japan’s belligerent fiefdoms. Their
prize was usurped in a campaign that lasted only seven weeks.
Tokugawa’s shogunate would rule Japan in peace for 15 generations,
268 years.
Ten years before the battle of Sekigahara, Japan’s present and future
lords stood together on a hilltop along the eastern coast. Toyotomi
Hideyoshi, at the zenith of his power and abilities, met with
Tokugawa Ieyasu, who had become his lieutenant. Once comrades
under Oda Nobunaga, then enemies in battle, they were now allies,
united in victory over the Hōjō clan. Here on the hilltop, Toyotomi
offered to Tokugawa a fateful proposition. In exchange for the 5
central provinces that Tokugawa’s family had known for generations,
he offered 8 provinces eastward in Kanto, further from the
capital, uncultivated, and surrounded by unfamiliar enemies. It was
a daunting proposition, but Ieyasu accepted on the spot.
The day Tokugawa arrived in his new capital of Edo is still celebrated
in that city, modern Tokyo. In 1590 it was a backwater, a
haggard castle rising from a swamp. But Ieyasu was more than a
warlord, he was an administrator of genius. From this damp village
in the Kanto he built an economic empire in the course of a single
decade. Ten years later, his annual income (2.5 million koku, manyears
of rice) was more than double that of any other daimyo.
Toyotomi had meant to consign Tokugawa to years of fruitless
difficulties, while alienating him from the politics of the capital in
Kyoto. Instead, by giving Ieyasu a large and fertile fief he allowed
the emergence of a natural successor, a first among equals, in the
ranks of leading daimyo. After Hideyoshi died, eyes shifted to one
man; behind the system of fealty, Japan had a dominant power
waiting to emerge.
***
Toyotomi Hideyoshi was one of the most remarkable men in the
history of Japan. He rose through the ranks in the service of the
greatest warrior of his day, Oda Nobunaga. Ugly and low-born, he
was called ‘monkey’ by his detractors. But his talent was extraordinary.
He came to be Oda’s most trusted retainer, pairing a series of
brilliant military successes with careful reassurances of complete
loyalty. One story still told today recalls Toyotomi warming Oda’s
sandals by keeping them against his chest. Toyotomi was always
careful to ask Oda’s direction in military matters, regardless how
unnecessary. And Oda delighted in Toyotomi’s prowess. Once,
seeing Toyotomi’s magnificent army, he remarked “His monkey
face has not changed, but who would dare call him monkey now?
Astonishing, indeed, is the way men’s positions alter.”
Toyotomi was a man of fine taste, but he could also explode into
rage at a slight. His elegant death poem, above, is one of the best
in the tradition. But bold indeed was the man who invited him
to tea in a cherry garden only to strip every blossom off the trees.
Ready to kill for such an insult, Toyotomi burst into the building
and saw a single cup of water in which was balanced one utterly
perfect blossom. Fury turned to gratification.
Rage like this could have geopolitical consequences. After fighting
a campaign in Korea, Toyotomi received a Chinese emissary
expecting to be named emperor of all lands. When instead he was
acknowledged ruler of only Japan, he exploded and launched a
second war. It was also this anger, or perhaps a general deterioration
of faculties, that inspired the killing of his own family. When
his preferred heir reached the age of two, Hideyoshi ordered the
death of his previous (adopted) heir, plus 29 of his family members.
By so doing he left his dynasty in the hands of a single 2-year-old
boy, completely vulnerable to disease or intrigues.
It was Toyotomi’s love of tea that launched his friendship with Ishida
Mitsunari. Mitsunari became Inspector-General in Hideyoshi’s
army, but he was not a military man; he was a tea master. Hideyoshi
knew from personal reflection that someone tasteful enough to
perform a superlative tea ceremony had talents that could be turned
to other tasks. To him, rank and birth meant nothing; only talent
mattered. In Ishida he found talent, and he promoted it. Ishida did
indeed have other abilities. He became a skillful administrator, and
in time, a relentless intriguer.
Ishida is the man who would later lead an army to defend the
Toyotomi heir. In the Korean campaign, Ishida made friends and
enemies that would shape alliances at Sekigahara. He once attended
a tea ceremony with daimyo Ōtani Yoshitsugu. Ōtani, who was
ill, left a drop of pus in the cup before passing it onwards. Other
participants were revolted as the cup reached their hands and they
were obliged to drink. To spare the man his agony, Ishida claimed
the cup out of order, drank everything in it, and apologized to all for
being so ‘thirsty’. Ōtani was astonished and grateful, and years later
would fight at Ishida’s side at Sekigahara. The opposite outcome
obtained when Ishida visited Kuroda Yoshitaka in Korea. Kuroda
was engaged in a game of go, and made Ishida wait. Incensed,
Ishida reported to Toyotomi that Kuroda cared more for go than
war. Kuroda was stung and never forgave the slight; in 1600 he
would be Ishida’s enemy.
Toyotomi was a man of such talent and character that he could
inspire loyalty through bold gesture. Many times in his career he
converted a deadly rival into a vassal through an act of disarming
courage or honesty. When asking his enemy Date Masamune to
submit, he revealed to Masamune the tactics he would employ
were they to fight, all while standing defenseless, having placed
his sword in his enemy’s hands. Date was amazed, and surrendered
his lands.
Bolder still, Toyotomi once travelled deep into Uesugi territory
undefended, to meet in person with his enemy Uesugi Kagekatsu.
Astonished by his courage, the Uesugi chose to become allies rather
than enemies.
What other men would have fought for, Toyotomi was given on
account of the strength of his character. To describe the heroic
impression Toyotomi made on his peers, historian Walter Dening
makes apt reference to a story about Hercules:
“O, Iole, how did you know that Hercules was a god?” “Because,”
answered Iole, “I was content the moment my eyes fell upon him.
When I beheld Theseus I desired that I might see him offer battle,
or at least guide his horses in the chariot-race. But Hercules did
not wait for a contest; he conquered whether he stood, walked, or
sat, or whatever thing he did.”
Having once trapped the rival Mōri clan in a siege, news came
to Toyotomi that his lord and mentor, Oda Nobunaga, had been
murdered by one of his own supporters. Toyotomi wanted to rush
to the scene, but a departure would leave him vulnerable to attack.
Toyotomi presented himself to the Mōri and explained the situation.
His courage spoke volumes, as did his indifference. Against
so bold a commander, the Mōri preferred to decline combat as his
troops left the scene.
That moment was the greatest turning point in his career. Returning
to the site of treachery, he found and defeated the disloyal forces.
He had avenged the betrayal, and his recent successes made him
the preeminent warrior in Japan. It was he around whom the Oda
power structure now consolidated—even Oda’s son was happy to
follow Toyotomi. He had completed his rise; he was taikō.
Tokugawa Ieyasu, though of noble birth, rose from broken circumstances.
He was separated from his mother at age 2, kidnapped at
age 6, and taken as a hostage at age 9. Perhaps as a result of these
events, emotion played little part in his character. He made his
decisions on rational grounds, regardless the emotional toll. When
they were implicated in a treasonous plot, he ordered the death of
his own wife and first-born son.
Like Toyotomi he found it necessary to diminish himself before the
rulers of the day in order not to rouse their suspicions. He took great
pains not to reveal his talents or his ambitions, but some noticed all
the same. An old enemy, Takeda Shingen, noted “Ieyasu cherishes
great hopes for the future... He won’t eat anything out of season.”
Unlike Toyotomi, who made a virtue of his vulnerability, Ieyasu did
indeed act with the overcaution of one who ‘cherishes great hopes’.
When he travelled out of his fiefdom he made elaborate escape
plans should treachery occur.
Beneath the deprecation and caution was an extraordinary mind.
His generalship was superlative. Once when fighting the Takeda
he found himself threatened with disaster. Having lost a battle, he
retreated with only a few troops to a nearby castle, his enemies in
pursuit. On arrival, he ordered the gates flung wide, bright torches
burnt outside the entrance, and a loud drum banged throughout
the night. When the Takeda forces arrived, they surmised Ieyasu
was planning an attack—rather than a desperate defense—and
declined to give battle.
Tokugawa served most of his life under the leadership of his two
great predecessors, Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Only
when these warlords died, having unified the nation but failed to
provide an heir, did Tokugawa reap the fruits of their labors. An old
story explains it thus: Oda Nobunaga makes rice cakes, Toyotomi
Hideyoshi cooks them, and Tokugawa Ieyasu eats them.
How much of Tokugawa’s success, then, was owing to good fortune?
Certainly he benefitted from circumstance. Several of his rivals died
at convenient moments: not merely Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi
Hideyoshi but also Takeda Shingen and Maeda Toshiie. But if his
path was fortunate, was there another who could have walked it?
Tokugawa needed generalship and diplomacy to expand his fiefdom;
uncommon self control, in order not to come into conflict with his
lords; and extraordinary management ability, that he could develop
his Kanto domain into the engine of war and commerce that it became.
Tokugawa played his hand so carefully, and showed such skill
in its execution, that it would be unfair not to award the majority
of the credit for his accomplishments to his own efforts.
***
After Toyotomi’s death, Japan emerged in stages from the rigid stasis
he had willed for it. Japanese troops were still in Korea, fighting
and losing the second of two successive wars. For a time, Toyotomi’s
death was concealed by the state. Once the troops returned and the
truth emerged, it was Tokugawa who offered the first test to the
new regime’s stability. He assigned a few of his family to political
marriages, something forbidden by the system Toyotomi had given
them. Fractures formed in the committees and sides were taken.
Then the actions of Toyotomi loyalist Ishida Mitsunari brought
the simmer to a boil.
First Ishida attempted to sow suspicion between the most powerful
daimyo, suggesting to Tokugawa that Maeda Toshiie would kill
him when given the chance. Soon after there was an attempt on
Tokugawa’s life. The attempt failed, Ishida was implicated, and a
group of Tokugawa supporters conspired to kill Ishida in return.
Cornered, Ishida fled to the mercy of his greatest enemy, Tokugawa
himself. Astonishingly, Tokugawa let him free and escorted him to
safety. The reasons for this action have been much guessed at over
the years, and several theories have been entertained. First, that
Tokugawa was naïve and thought Ishida a friend. This is highly
unlikely. Second, that he was prone to forgive. One of his favorite
sayings was Lao Tsu’s “Requite malice with kindness”. He had
dodged assassination once before, and had returned the captured
killer to his master, saying that anyone bold enough to creep into
his bedroom and perforate his bedding with a sword was undoubtedly
a “valuable man”. Third, and most likely, however, Tokugawa
protected Ishida because he saw in the latter an instigator capable
of unbalancing Toyotomi’s careful system. Political disequilibrium
would give Tokugawa his best chance to rule, and yet he could not
be seen to create it himself, lest others ally against him. As one advisor
put it, it was through men like Ishida that soon Ieyasu might
come to rule all of Japan.
Ishida’s close escape did not stop his campaign of intrigues. Instead,
he crafted a more ambitious plot to ignite war against Tokugawa
with the help of daimyo Uesugi Kagekatsu. The Uesugi lived in
the north of Japan, near to Tokugawa’s fief, so disobedience by
the former would be the latter’s to correct. Ishida arranged with
Uesugi that a disturbance would be created, and as Ieyasu went to
address it, an army of his enemies would be organized behind him.
Tokugawa would be surrounded and outnumbered.
The plot was launched in 1600, when Uesugi set about building
a new castle and engaging in conspicuous fortification. Tokugawa
asked that he come to the capital to explain his actions, and received
in reply an insulting rebuff. Citified samurai collect tea implements,
wrote Uesugi, while country samurai collect weapons. The gauntlet
was thrown, and Tokugawa had no choice but to respond.
Tokugawa gathered a force and departed Osaka castle. He headed
east and north on the Tōkaidō, one of Japan’s two highways. He
moved slowly, taking forty days to reach Edo, and listening all the
time to reports from friends in Osaka. What he heard was the rapid
unraveling of Toyotomi’s political equilibrium. A nation of warriors,
Japan demanded conflict and command. Toyotomi’s system,
of peace and divided power, was in fact a vacuum, and that vacuum
would now be filled. Almost instinctively, the nation resolved to
fight. There would be a war, and whether in Toyotomi’s name or
Tokugawa’s, Japan would have clear leadership.
It was a war born of a trap, and it sprang like a trap, catching even
the protagonists by surprise with the rapidity of events. What Ishida
had hoped would be an anti-Tokugawa action quickly became a
crucible for determining Japan’s entire structure of governance.
Would Japan be led by its strongest daimyo, Tokugawa Ieyasu,
or by a caretaker safeguarding the Toyotomi succession? Two
causes opposed each other, and two armies formed to champion
them. Tokugawa’s became known as the army of the East, Ishida
Mitsunari’s the army of the West.
Tokugawa launched a frenzied campaign of correspondence, inviting
daimyo to join him in the upcoming war. He wrote 180 letters,
to 108 lords throughout Japan. He asked for their allegiance, and
99 of them offered it. It is an irony that it would fall to Ieyasu, unemotional
and incapable of small talk, to win a war through letterwriting.
In his messages he said he would depart Edo on October
1st, but when that date arrived he could not yet move because he
was still uncertain who was with him. He remained until the 7th,
when he decided urgency was more essential than certainty.
Ishida Mitsunari gathered the western forces from his position in
the capital region. He and his supporters were able to personally
address most of the daimyo they wished to recruit. Mōri Terumoto,
one of Japan’s most powerful men, was narrowly persuaded to join
the western army. Another leading warlord, Kobayakawa Hideaki,
was on his way to join Tokugawa forces when he was waylaid and
talked into a change of allegiance.
As the war began, Ishida’s strategy was twofold. First, he sought
to consolidate the castles in the capital region under his control. A
number of sieges were launched, which when successful resulted
in solid control of the area. The sieges were slow, however. It took
eleven days to capture Fushimi castle in Kyoto. Tanabe castle took
even longer on account of the presence of a famous poet and his
valuable library—plus the indifference of the sieging troops, who
often ‘forgot’ to load their cannon with shot. The latter operation
took so long that the units involved were not available to fight at
Sekigahara.
Ishida’s second priority was to secure the western end of Japan’s
two highways. He made an alliance with Oda Hidenobu, grandson
of the warlord Oda Nobunaga, who controlled Gifu castle. All the
roads west of Gifu, on both highways, were controlled by western
forces.
At the same time, Ishida had to negotiate with Mōri Terumoto, the
strongest daimyo of his faction. Mōri’s income was second only to
the Tokugawa in all Japan, and his stature was such that he owed
loyalty not to Ishida but to the Toyotomi. As such he took actions
independently, uncoordinated with Ishida’s designs. He moved to
Osaka castle with 30,000 men and declared himself the guardian
of the Toyotomi family, heedless of Ishida’s need for those troops
in the field. Ishida might have coaxed Mōri into the conflict, had
he been willing to sacrifice some of his own stature. The failure of
these leaders to coordinate was to have enormous consequences in
the Sekigahara campaign.
Ishida gathered his army at Ogaki castle, just west of Gifu. Having
consolidated the capital region of Japan, he knew now that
Tokugawa would have to come to him.
As Tokugawa moved to Edo in the early days of the conflict, his
strategy was still extremely fluid. He intended at first to pursue the
northern campaign against the Uesugi, and moved his headquarters
north of Edo, to Oyama, in preparation. Then he changed his mind
and returned to Edo. He resolved upon a new strategy. Rather than
fight small battles around Japan, he would force a single decisive
battle that would resolve all other conflicts in one blow.
Fighting Uesugi was left to Date Masamune and other local daimyo.
Another Tokugawa ally, Maeda Toshinaga, might have been included
in the campaign had he not been engaged already against
regional enemies. Tokugawa turned all of his forces to the west.
The westward battle plan had three stages. First, a force would be
deployed to take Gifu castle and establish a forward base of operations.
Second, two armies would march from Edo to that gathering
point, one along each highway. Finally, the large army so assembled
would march westward for a climactic confrontation.
The assault of Gifu would enable Tokugawa control of the twin
highways of central Japan, the Tōkaidō and the Nakasendō, which
he would then use to rapidly deploy his forces westwards. Tokugawa
sent an army of 16,000 from Edo along the Tōkaidō, under daimyo
Fukushima Masanori. Fearing that force might be insufficient,
he sent another 18,000 to follow them. All reached Gifu, where
the plan almost fractured because the two commanders could not
resolve the honor of leading the attack. The night before they were
to begin the assault, they nearly fought a duel before a solution
was agreed: each would lead a separate attack on opposite sides
of the structure.
At the same time, the campaign against Uesugi Kagekatsu proceeded.
Eventually, Date and the Tokugawa allies were able to
overcome the Uesugi, in a battle that occurred after Sekigahara
but before word had reached the north.
With the highways under his control, Tokugawa Ieyasu moved to
deploy the rest of his army. In contrast to his slow departure from
Osaka, he returned with alacrity in order to surprise his enemies.
He sent 38,000 men under his son Hidetada along the Nakasendō,
and took 33,000 with himself along the Tōkaidō, meaning to unify
the forces at Gifu castle.
During the march Tokugawa continued to receive letters pledging
allegiances, in some cases from daimyo who, unsatisfied with their
first decision, were choosing sides for the second time. He noted
the fluidity of loyalty, worried for the reliability of his men, and
resolved to test the allegiance of his enemies.
Tokugawa’s Tōkaidō force completed the march successfully and
arrived at Gifu castle on October 19. The Nakasendō force was
delayed. Weather was partly to blame, but more importantly, Hidetada
took up a siege at castle Ueda against the instructions of his
father. The siege drew on under the cunning defense of local daimyo
Sanada Masayuki, until Hidetada eventually abandoned it. By then
he was hopelessly late, and when the battle of Sekigahara broke out
he and his 38,000 men were still 200 kilometers away.
When they first spied the eastern army, Ishida’s western forces
were camped at Ogaki castle, west of Gifu. Tokugawa set his camp
5 kilometers to their northeast. Ishida’s western force numbered
82,000, Tokugawa’s eastern army 89,000. Though of roughly equal
size, the two forces were in very different psychological states.
The western army was closer to home and more rested. Supply
lines were cleaner, reinforcements closer. They camped not far from
Ishida’s home castle at Sawayama. But the early arrival of eastern
troops had unnerved them. Clearly, their plan to distract Tokugawa
in the north had failed. Further, the eastern army was larger than
expected—Ishida had underestimated the degree of support there
would be for Tokugawa. Finally, since this territory was home to
the western forces, Ishida had more to lose by fighting here. He
had to be concerned about defending Osaka, Kyoto, and Sawayama
from invasion. While Tokugawa might be at liberty to give or refuse
battle, Ishida felt his options narrowing.
Tokugawa put his proximity and confidence to immediate use
by attempting to arrange defections among the western forces. Ii
Naomasa and Honda Tadakatsu, some of Tokugawa’s most loyal
leaders, were dispatched to speak with the retainers of several western
daimyo. To Kobayakawa Hideaki they offered a domain of two
provinces, if he were to switch sides and fight for Tokugawa. The
price was agreed, and the seeds of treachery planted.
The betrayal of Kobayakawa had its roots in an old grudge against
Ishida. The former, after leading Japanese forces in Korea in what
some considered a reckless manner, was stripped of much of his
territory by Toyotomi. He suspected truth in the rumor that Ishida
had recommended the action. Though the land was later returned,
Kobayakawa’s resentment persisted.
After reaching proximity with the enemy, eastern leadership considered
several strategic options. Ii Naomasa proposed an attack
on Ogaki castle, creating at once that definitive battle for which
the army had been gathered. Honda Tadakatsu preferred a march
to Osaka, which if unopposed would end the war just as decisively.
Tokugawa’s final decision was to mask Ogaki castle with a small
detachment of troops while marching west towards Sawayama and
then Osaka. If successful, the western forces would be cut off from
the ground they sought to defend.
The western army was also unsure of strategy. Notified that
Tokugawa planned to bypass his position, Ishida scrambled for a
proactive plan. A night attack was proposed, only to be rejected
because Ishida felt it suitable only for a weak or desperate army.
Instead, he settled on a night march, to select and occupy ground
for a battle in the morning. For the site of that battle, he chose the
crossroads of Sekigahara.
Drenching rain pelted the western troops as in darkness they departed
their camp. They marched westward to a fork in the road
offering different routes to Kyoto and Sawayama. To defend both,
a stand would have to be made at Sekigahara. Hills ringed the road,
and between them there would be room for battle. Ishida’s men took
the high ground all around the site and waited for dawn.
Tokugawa’s night was nearly as restless. At 2:00, despite the storm,
he mounted his horse to reconnoiter the ground ahead. When he
was satisfied with the approach, he woke the army and brought them
on behind him to the site of battle. He arranged his men along the
road, the hills having been occupied, with a substantial force to the
rear to prevent encirclement and facilitate escape. Both commanders,
in fact, were careful to ensure an escape route – Ishida stationed
himself at the back near the road that led to Sawayama.
Both sides pressed for combat despite having substantial temporary
weaknesses. Ishida had twice tried to summon the 30,000 Mōri
troops at Osaka castle, and they had not yet come. The siege of
Tanabe castle had just finished, and another 15,000 troops were
on their way to join the main force. Tokugawa’s son Hidetada was
late with 38,000 men a few days march to the northeast on the
Nakasendō. Still, each felt they had more to fear from delay than
action. Ishida worried about the integrity of his coalition and knew
that to retreat further would be to sacrifice his home of Sawayama.
Tokugawa held the advantage of surprise against an enemy with
more local resources.
Each army was made up mostly of ground troops, armed with
spears and swords. Each had some cavalry and some arquebusiers.
The arquebus had been revolutionizing Japanese warfare in the
half-century since its introduction, in the process making archery
obsolete.
The morning of October 21, 1600 was muddy from a night of rain,
and hazy with mist. The army of the East launched the battle when
Ii Naomasa’s troops, called the “Red Devils” for the fearsome red
lacquered armor they wore, charged the field. Fukushima Masanori,
who had been promised the honor of first attack, plunged forward
immediately as well, assaulting the strong central position of the
stalwart loyalist Ukita Hideie.
Ishida ordered a counterattack, and to his dismay found that some
of his units refused to move. The Shimazu merely held their positions,
not fighting until they were attacked. On the flank, Kikkawa
Hiroie refused a signal to attack, and the 15,000 Mōri troops behind
him were satisfied to wait. Repeated orders were also sent to
Kobayakawa Hideaki demanding an attack, but he stood on the
southern hillside as battle raged in the valley.
Tokugawa, too, was asking Kobayakawa to move. Finally, shots
were fired in his direction, in demand of a decision. With that
signal, Kobayakawa engaged, charging down the hillside to attack
his former allies. The southern end of Ishida’s line was enveloped.
All across the field, western forces were being beaten back, despite
the valor of a few loyalists.
The eastern army began the consolidation of its victory. Tokugawa
Ieyasu erected a court on the battlefield in which to receive commanders
and the heads of his enemies. To loyal friends like Fukushima,
Ii and Honda, he declared his everlasting gratitude. He
praised the turncoat Kobayakawa and allowed him to lead an attack
of Sawayama castle (now largely a formality). He reserved his greatest
scorn for those who had refused battle, specifically the Mōri.
Ishida escaped into the mountains, to be caught a few days later
and executed. Ukita, a young daimyo who had fought tenaciously,
was forgiven his involvement but forced to live in exile and abstain
from politics. Toyotomi Hideyori was entrusted to Tokugawa’s care,
and survived another 15 years before being killed for disloyalty.
The Mōri were stripped of most of their land and wealth, leaving
them bitter and vengeful for centuries to come. Their children
slept with feet pointed east, in insult to the victors of Sekigahara.
It became a tradition, in Chosho where the Mōri lived, to open
each new year with a ceremonial exchange in which prominent
leaders would ask of the daimyo “Has the time come to begin the
subjugation of the [Tokugawa]?” to which he would reply “No, the
time had not yet come.” (More than 250 years later the time finally
had come, and the rebellion that overturned the shogunate was led
in part by Chosho.)
The Sekigahara campaign was fought rapidly. In seven weeks of
hostilities, the fate of Japan was settled. The whole episode, including
Tokugawa’s march northwards and letter-writing campaign, took
just over three months. In that time, every daimyo had to select
a side, raise troops, deploy and fight. Little wonder, then, that the
campaign was so unpredictable, loyalty so fluid, plans and objectives
so often revised. It was an improvised war.
In this brief and unstructured engagement, loyalty was as important
as troop strength. Victory went not to the largest army, but to that
which best supported its commander.
Tokugawa returned victorious to Osaka castle exactly 100 days after
he had left to punish the Uesugi. His dynasty would last 268 years.
It is remarkable that equilibrium so durable could have arisen from
an episode so unstructured and chaotic. But it was not by chance
—after he subdued his enemies, Tokugawa took every measure to
subdue the nation.
After Sekigahara, Tokugawa spent the last 15 years of his life
laying the foundations for the Tokugawa shogunate. (The title
of shogun, inaccessible to Toyotomi for reasons of low birth, was
accorded to Tokugawa.) He transferred the title to his son years
before he died in order to ensure a good succession. He invented
a new social hierarchy and lived to oversee it. To every station in
society he gave responsibilities and obligations. To the samurai, he
gave the duty of martial ceremony, in lieu of martial acts. He set
the nation busy complying with new objectives, and thus weaned
them from violent impulse.
Tokugawa did what Toyotomi could not: domesticate a nation of
warriors. Under Toyotomi, for sake of war, conquest of Japan was
followed by invasion of Korea. Tokugawa instead made warriors into
governors and citizens. Tokugawa rule was known as the bakufu,
which means ‘government from a tent’, or governance by soldiers.
In the strict class hierarchy of the Tokugawa period, samurai abandoned
bloodshed and became members of the governing class.
In this transformation we see the magnitude of Tokugawa’s accomplishment.
Just as he had throughout his life controlled his
own emotions, now he controlled those of a nation. A great administrator,
he created the institutions that turned an entire people
from war to peace, ending an era of chaos and launching an era of
tranquility. The Buddha said “One who conquers himself is greater
than another who conquers a thousand times a thousand on the
battlefield.” Tokugawa Ieyasu did not himself subdue the various
territories of Japan, as did his predecessors. He was fortunate to inherit
the fruits of their struggles for unification. But only Tokugawa
conquered the people, because of the three great warlords, only he
had first conquered himself.
Design Notes
Sekigahara is an unusual game. The peculiarities of the design are the
product of two priorities: that it depict the conflict in its mechanisms
rather than merely in its particularities, and that it adheres to certain
design objectives that I consider important.
I prefer a game that rewards skillful play and diminishes the effect
of chance. One of my earliest and easiest decisions was to exclude
dice from the design. A die roll generates a two-sided surprise: both
parties are unable to predict the result of a die roll, and thus cannot
plan for it. I prefer one-sided uncertainty (hidden units and cards)
to encourage planning and bluffing.
For playability, I wanted the game to finish in 2-3 hours. This naturally
set a limit on the amount of complexity I could introduce into
the rules. Fortunately, as I will explain below, I prioritized realism
over complexity, and found I could accommodate quite a lot of the
former despite a cap on the latter.
There exist in wargaming a series of game types: card-driven, block,
counter. For each of these categories the seasoned gamer will immediately
recall a series of games, some classics and some best forgotten,
which fit the mold. There have even developed conventions
within conventions, such that we can expect a card-driven wargame
to offer a tradeoff between action points and events, and a block
game to feature step-losses and lots of dice. What this conventionality
gains in familiarity it loses in realism. Can the same mechanism
accurately convey different conflicts centuries apart? Some would
say it can, so long as you adjust the incidental elements in the game:
unit values, events, map, ‘chrome’ rules to add color. I began with
the assumption that this would not suffice. Rather than convey the
spirit of the conflict through incidentals, I attempted to convey it
through the design mechanisms themselves.
One could also debate what constitutes the spirit of the conflict,
and what it means to be accurate in design. Wargames usually
achieve accuracy through weight. We forgive a game complexity
if it provides greater realism. But what kind of realism is best? It
may seem realistic to list precisely the fighting value of every unit,
or draw from a deck of historical events, but the commanders in
the war were never privy to such knowledge. Make the game too
‘accurate’ in these regards and you degrade the accuracy of the experience.
Fidelity must be declared to realism of ‘details’ or realism
of experience; this design has favored the latter.
I sought to convey the experience of being a commander in the war
of Sekigahara through the mechanisms of the game. Since the war
was characterized by uncertainty—the fog of war so close leaders
could choke on it—so should be the mechanisms (hidden blocks
and cards). Since the war was won and lost over loyalty, a major
mechanism (the cards) was introduced to depict loyalty. Mechanisms
were determined not by wargaming convention, but by the
peculiarities of the Sekigahara conflict.
The war of Sekigahara was unusual in several ways. First, the extreme
importance of loyalty and personal legitimacy. Second, the haste and
uncertainty under which it was organized and prosecuted. Third,
the absolute centrality of people, and thus the importance of their
personalities and their safety. Finally, the way honor and the pursuit
of honor dominated behavior throughout the conflict.
No factor was more important in determining the outcome of the
war than loyalty. Neither commander could be certain of his supporters,
nor entirely confident in numerical superiority. Battles were
won instead by loyalty and legitimacy. Some troops fought heroically
(like Ii and Ukita), some were passive (Mōri), some treacherous
(Kobayakawa). The final battle, indeed the entire war, was decided
by defections and disloyalty. To model loyalty I introduced the
deck of cards, representing the support of the troops. The bigger
the hand size, the more legitimacy. The possibility was introduced
of a unit brought to battle and then refusing to take part (a typical
occurrence in this war). In order to model treachery, I added ‘Loyalty
Challenge’ cards, which have the additional benefit of making each
battle a tactical exercise of bluff and deceit. Tokugawa has one more
of these cards than Ishida, and the difference may be telling.
Sekigahara was an improvised war. It was a civil war based on people
and not geography, in which over 100 daimyo separately made allegiance
decisions. Fighting lasted just seven weeks, with another
seven of preparation. The struggle began and finished with forces
scattered across Japan, fighting local enemies and capturing local
targets. Despite this chaos, Sekigahara was a strategic conflict. It
emerged out of a well-planned trap, and ended in a well-planned
strategic attack. Chaos swept around the feet of our protagonists,
but it did not overwhelm them. I have modeled this uncertainty
with a semi-randomized unit setup that forces each player to open
the game with improvisation, even as other factors (compounding
special attacks, card carryovers across turns, bonuses for castle and
supply control) urgently encourage them to form a strategy. To depict
the tension between opportunism and centralization the board
is littered with easy targets but players begin with precious little
organizational capacity (just 5 cards). A few factors are known to
each player; the rest is a blur of uncertainty. Blocks are hidden, cards
are secret and rapidly recycled, reinforcements drawn at random.
Extreme as this may seem, if I have erred it is on the side of overcertainty.
No mechanism in the game can reproduce the dismay
of the western army on the arrival of Tokugawa at Gifu castle, far
sooner, and with far more troops, than expected. I happily sacrifice
perceived detail to recapture the authentic feeling of improvisation
and uncertainty felt by the leaders in this war.
There are three figures whose death or capture would have transformed
the conflict. Tokugawa and Ishida, of course, and also
Toyotomi Hideyori. Personality drove the war in a more subtle way
as well. Tokugawa’s stronger personality allowed better coordination
of his daimyo. Ishida’s conspiratorial talents helped him set the
initial trap with Uesugi Kagekatsu, but his tense relationship with
Mōri Terumoto may have cost him the war. Given the importance
of people and personality, it was essential that players represent
protagonists and not causes. (Thus the game ends on protagonist
death or capture.) The Ishida-Mōri relationship, in which personal
interest took precedence over loyalty to their cause, required an
additional mechanism to depict the tradeoff Ishida faced between
strength and primacy.
Honor was the most nonintuitive of the themes that defined the
conflict. Honor drove daimyo to besiege castles that were of little
strategic importance. Honor caused breakdowns in coordination
amongst allies. Honor is why Torii Mototada’s doomed defense of
Fushimi Castle is still celebrated in the present day. Honor nearly
disrupted the assault on Gifu castle, when two Tokugawa daimyo
proposed to fight each other (for the right of first attack) before they
faced the enemy. Honor led one earlier Tokugawa enemy to burn
incense in his helmet before a battle so that his head would make
a better trophy. (Tokugawa was so impressed he recommended the
practice to his own followers.) How to model a factor that could
create—even celebrate—martial failure in the name of a higher
cause? I settled on two mechanisms, both regarding the dispersion
of cards. First, bonus cards are allocated according to losses in battle,
not victory, with extra cards given to those dying in defense of a
castle. Second, the owner of more castles draws an additional card
at the beginning of each week.
The units that fought in the war were characterized above all by
their clan. A secondary characteristic was the use of guns or horses.
Cavalry did not travel faster than ground units because they were
accompanied by non-mounted retainers. The secondary purpose
of the special units in the game was to reward central organization.
Armies that took time to organize became more powerful, as
depicted by the compounding special attack bonuses.
Many clans fought in the war and for game purposes I had to select
just a few. In Ishida’s case it was simple—Mōri, Ukita, Uesugi, and
Kobayakawa were the strongest and most important daimyo in
the western coalition. Tokugawa had a wider range of mid-sized
supporters, and I chose them based on regional representation and
centrality to the plot. Other worthy names were consolidated under
my selections: Fukushima was supported by Ikeda Terumasa, Date
by Mogami Yoshiaki. Maeda is included for geographical balance
and because it was one of Japan’s strongest houses, though its impact
in the Sekigahara campaign was primarily regional.
Japan was dotted in castles and I include only a few of them in the
game. Gifu, Ueda, and Osaka are essential to tell the story; the others
were selected representationally, generally in places where sieges
occurred. Resource areas are meant to depict control of territory,
and so I have scattered them across the map. I have also tried to
convey the importance of the Tōkaidō and Nakasendō highways.
In a campaign characterized by dispersed forces and targets, the use
of good roads to centralize and coordinate was essential. Not every
little road could be included on the map, of course, and because
there are always more, I have written the retreat rules to prevent
easy encirclements.
The ability to build riskier or safer armies and to groom your hand
of cards in order to motivate them is one of my favorite elements of
the design. The most powerful army in the game is one of uniform
type—many blocks from the same clan, or many special attacks of
the same variety. This is also the most difficult army to field, as it
takes careful card preparation and a well-timed attack. The double
attack cards are essential for this purpose, and are more valuable than
they first appear. I also enjoy the tension in sequential deployments
of blocks during a battle. Some are at risk of defection (those for
which no more cards are available) and some are not. Players can
be cautious or reckless in their battlefield decisions. There is a thrill
in deploying a potential defector successfully and an even greater
one when you turn an enemy unit to your side.
Elegance was always a priority. One reason for the unusual block
shape is that they can be stacked and thus every army viewed at
once, without flipping or rearranging the pieces. Where the characteristics
of the conflict did not dictate complexity, I made every
effort to reduce it in the game. In the words of Einstein, a game
should be as simple as possible, and no simpler.
—Matt Calkins