So something odd that happens in Hanzo's SW 3 story (and I think Ina's or someone else's) is that Ieyasu wins the battle of Komaki-Nagakute and allows Hideyoshi to join him in his conquest (historically, it was the other way around). Just two stages later, Ieyasu is working for Hideyoshi. I know it's likely an oversight and they'd have to make another version of the stage just for this situation but still.
If you actually look at it they never truly let Ieyasu "win", just avoid conquest, so it's more like "win the battle, lose the war" kind of case.
Any reason why the games ignore the Ashikaga Shogunate's collapse, I mean, that part of history is what lead to the Warring States Period, didn't it?
With the addition of Hisahide in SW 4 it looks like there may be some focus given to it.
The SW 4 Legend of the Sanada ending leaves me confused. Or more specifically, Nobuyuki's version does. The ending is mostly the same across both characters, the main difference being which Sanada wins the final duel. But no matter who wins, Yukimura goes on to his Dying Moment of Awesome... but what I wonder is, why doesn't Nobuyuki stop him? In Yukimura's version of the ending it's understandable, Yukimura wins the duel, so Nobuyuki can't do anything. But in Nobuyuki's ending, he manages to beat Yukimura, so he should've been in a perfect position to capture him or otherwise stop him, but instead he lets Yukimura pick up his spear and go die. I get that Koei wants quasi-accuracy, but still...