Riddler - Solutions to Castles Puzzle: castle-solutions-3.csv
Data license: CC Attribution 4.0 License · Data source: fivethirtyeight/data on GitHub · About: simonw/fivethirtyeight-datasette
264 rows where Castle 2 = 0 sorted by Castle 1
This data as json, copyable, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: Castle 1, Castle 3, Castle 4, Castle 5
Link | rowid | Castle 1 ▼ | Castle 2 | Castle 3 | Castle 4 | Castle 5 | Castle 6 | Castle 7 | Castle 8 | Castle 9 | Castle 10 | Why did you choose your troop deployment? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
326 | 326 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 17 | 20 | 23 | 26 | 0 | 0 | Ignored 9&10 and chose the fewest castles past that to give me more than 28 points and weighed troops by value |
329 | 329 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 15 | 18 | 26 | 28 | 0 | 0 | Distributed my troops evenly through 4-8 which will give me 30 points each time banking on that I have more troop in those stations giving the other opponent 10-9-3-2-. |
339 | 339 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 15 | |
342 | 342 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | This is my second entry. I created it as the counterpoint to my strategy (sort of) in the first. Here, I must win 3 of the 4 largest and then pick up 4 more points. |
343 | 343 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 23 | 0 | 30 | 27 | 0 | There's no way to win without at least four castles, so I focused on winning four and tried to optimize versus earlier distributions. |
351 | 351 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 30 | 31 | 0 | 24 | I came up with about a dozen different strategies. Strategy A was an even distribution (10 per castle), B was weighted (2 for Castle 1 up to 18 for Castle 10); C was weighted to beat A-B, D could beat A-C, all the way until strategy O. After Strategy O, I couldn't make another distribution that could beat N plus the other ones I had already made. It's banking on chaos and people not wanting to overpay for Castle 10, thinking they can take Castles 6-9 for a little more points |
353 | 353 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 20 | 22 | 3 | 24 | 28 | 0 | Resubmission of my last entry, which required me to put at least one on castle 1. Want to concentrate my efforts on reaching 28, the required score for winning the battle. The others are slight contingencies, in case someone else does the same thing. |
354 | 354 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 28 | 32 | 5 | 5 | Because I'm the Grandmaster. |
361 | 361 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 12 | 17 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 35 | 0 | I need 28 points to win, castle 1 and 2 have little value, I feel like people will value 10 and or 8 highly. 10 seems like a median number and something someone would throw at 3 or 4 so I went with 11 and 12. It's really a win all or lose scenario for me. Hopefully people spend resources out instead of concentrating. 10,9,8,1 seems like the most common strategy for people to really go after, I think I can overwhelm the 9 slot and forfeit the others while getting what I want |
364 | 364 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | Nash Equilibrium |
368 | 368 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 22 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 33 | 23 | I slightly modified Vince Vatter's distribution from Round 2. I'm very original. |
369 | 369 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 28 | 31 | Subscribe to the "Barely Win or Lose by a Lot" theory. |
371 | 371 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 2 | 2 | 31 | Try and get the 10 and then the 5-7 which weren't as heavily contested |
373 | 373 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 16 | 1 | 16 | 31 | 31 | To win. |
388 | 388 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 19 | 17 | 12 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 32 | Trying to win 10, 6, 5, 4, 3. Probably not a strategy to win the whole thing but should be good enough to be in top 50%. |
390 | 390 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 | 1 | 25 | 1 | 34 | |
396 | 396 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 13 | 2 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 0 | 11 | Gut feeling, picking the less selected castles by either of the previous two rounds. |
406 | 406 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 1 | 1 | 25 | 28 | 28 | 1 | |
430 | 430 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 16 | 17 | 16 | 16 | |
438 | 438 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 23 | 25 | 2 | 29 | This strategy should beat proportional strategies and rotations of proportional strategies, and I think that these will be the most common type. This will probably lose to some similar strategies (very concentrated on a few highest numbers and some low numbers), but by betting 2 on some of the middle numbers we'll hopefully beat more similar strategies than we lose to. We'll get crushed by strategies that beat us on 10 and 9 and also win a lot of low numbers, but I think these strategies will be least common. |
447 | 447 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 31 | 32 | 0 | I went for the less "psychologically significant" castles which would still give me a significant advantage. I sent 11 troops to 4 as an additional bonus in case someone is close to me in the upper ranges, or sweeps all the castles I didn't send any troops to - and since 11 just barely beats the simple strategy of sending 10 troops to each castle. I sent 26 to 7 because 26 is one more than 25 (another round number I expect people to use a lot), and similarly I sent 31 (rather than 30) to #8. Hope this works! |
448 | 448 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 18 | 3 | 26 | 26 | Focus on castles 5-6 and 9-10 |
457 | 457 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 13 | 16 | 8 | 14 | 14 | 17 | 14 | Took the average of the previous two winners and made a team that could beat that. |
458 | 458 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 50 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 seems like a good number. And I didn't want to send any lone soldiers off to die. I expect to win Castle 6 around 1/3 of the time, so hey, that's like 2 points. I'm feeling positive about it. |
461 | 461 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 21 | 0 | 22 | 36 | 2 | |
463 | 463 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 15 | 25 | 40 | More troops at higher point total castles. Abandon the smallest castles as they aren't worth winning. |
467 | 467 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 39 | I started with the averages and the winners from the last 2 rounds. Then I tried to craft a few strategies: a few random ones, some crafted to specifically beat the winners, some crafted to take advantage of historically undervalued spaces between winners and averages, - with some variations on how little/much to put on some of the lighter weighted castles. Then I sat down and went for a hyper aggressive strategy that had a single path to 28 points and would defeat all of the above hahaha. And so we end up here, with a warlord who styles him/herself also as an edgelord, and possibly did not do enough to account for beating strategies that were previously losing. |
469 | 469 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 17 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 21 | 38 | predictive to the human adjustment from round #2, I assumed flipped value on #9 and #10, otherwise assumed the meta deployment would be similar to before |
472 | 472 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 21 | 21 | 25 | Guarantee 10 and then assume no one else would expend more than 20 on any particular castle. Guarantee 9 and 8 on this rule and then spread the rest out descending. |
473 | 473 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 32 | 4-castle all-in no scouts. Relative value. My min allocation has to be > 10 to beat naive even split. My overpayment vs avg cost... I must win castle 9. The other castles I will overpay relative to my overpayment on castle 9. Castle 3 +7, castle 6 +11, castle 9 +18, castle 10 +14. You really have to beat my contested castles. Weakness is castle 3, but I’m at +7 and castle 6, +11. Beats all past winners. |
480 | 480 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 22 | 18 | Maximize points from ties |
484 | 484 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 21 | 1 | 1 | |
486 | 486 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 15 | 35 | 35 | Compared the strategy against a uniform deployment (10 / castle) and against the winner from second round. Tried to get at least 28 points against both strategies. |
487 | 487 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 35 | 15 | |
489 | 489 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 34 | 41 | 0 | The minimum number of castles needed is 3 which have to add up to 23. 6 is app. 25% of 23 so 25 soldiers 8 is app. 33% of 23 so 34 soldiers and the rest go to 9. |
493 | 493 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 37 | 38 | 23 points are needed to ensure a win - Overwhelming top two castles can get to 19 and then I just need to pick up one more of the other castles to win. Splitting between two helps cover bases if I lose one of the 9/10 and also increases odds i get the one castle to push me over 23 if I win the top two. |
495 | 495 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 16 | 16 | 27 | 27 | 11 | Sacrifice the low scoring to just barely overload the mid-to-high tier castles |
506 | 506 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 22 | 22 | 6 | 27 | 2 | 6 | 6 | I chose to give up 1 and 2 completely, focus on 4,5, 7 while putting enough points into the rest to hopefully stall non advances. |
513 | 513 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 0 | rather take the sum of the middle numbers over the first and last |
519 | 519 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 19 | 5 | 26 | 29 | 5 | |
523 | 523 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 25 | 30 | 0 | 0 | Play for the middle and push for the top but don’t over commit |
525 | 525 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 19 | 0 | 30 | 35 | 0 | I'm going all-in for getting the bare minimum points of 28 or more. The fewest castles I need is 4. 10-9-8-7 is an option but lots of people will go after castle 10, so I'm going after 5-6-8-9. Same number of castles, but I'm playing off the beaten path. Also, 5-6-8-9 are all castles that are in fewer winning combinations, so they're more likely to be won by me. The actual troop placements are based on the relative difficults I computed for winning those particular castles. |
544 | 544 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 22 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 34 | Stakeout the middle and get the top one. Didn’t waste on other castles. |
546 | 546 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 40 | 23 points to win. Overload the highest rated castles and sacrifice everything else |
550 | 550 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 17 | 0 | 33 | 35 | |
551 | 551 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 27 | 34 | Focusing resources where they could be useful, deliberately avoiding a couple of high-value targets to win the war |
555 | 555 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 0 | Sacrifices must be made! Castles 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 10 are dead to me! Going hyper-aggressive (but not the most aggressive strategy). Best Case: I win! Worst Case: I am a troll! |
556 | 556 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | Win four of the top five castles, and you win. This particular troop distribution fights harder for the bigger prizes; would win against four of the five top strategies devised last time; and should be able to compete against anyone putting significant effort in winning lower tier castles, as people have been doing. |
563 | 563 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 21 | 0 | 26 | 36 | 0 | I think a lot of people will be fighting for #10 and #1 because 10 is worth the most points and #1 is the tiebreaker if you went 10,9,8,1 or 7,6,5,4,3,2,1. I considered going for 10,9,8, 2 to avoid fighting over the #1 and because I could win even with a tie on #2, and then realized I could avoid #10 as well. In summary, I'm avoiding fighting over what I expect to be hotly contested #10 and #1 in favor of #6 and #5 while maintaining the concentration of my troops by only needing to capture 4 castles to win. As far as specific troop distribution goes, I made sure I had at least three times the castle number and dumped a bunch extra on #9, which I think will receive a heavy designation from anyone pursuing a variant of the 10,9,8,1 strategy. I did not assign any troop numbers that end in 0 or 5, they are too popular. |
575 | 575 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 14 | |
580 | 580 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | Instead of spreading out my troops, I wanted to backend my troops toward the castles with higher amount of individual points. |
586 | 586 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 21 | 0 | 29 | 29 | 0 | Let me try this again because I did my math wrong. Sacrifices must be made! Castles 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 10 are dead to me. |
587 | 587 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 23 | 26 | 30 | 1 | Grasp barely enough castles to win, plus one in 10 as a counter strategy against a mirror match. |
588 | 588 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 13 | 15 | 20 | 32 | The smallest 3 castles combine for only 6 points, so they're not worth deploying to, especially since that increases the available troops you can commit to the more valuable targets. |
589 | 589 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 11 | 14 | 17 | 20 | 17 | 13 | beat the average for both original Feb. and May soldiers per castle for all of the most valuable castles - punt on the low point battles. |
606 | 606 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 0 | Focus more troops on enough points to get more than half of points. |
610 | 610 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 33 | 33 | Try to ensure victory at the top 3 values, which are greater than the sum of the rest |
615 | 615 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 21 | 16 | 22 | 4 | 21 | Rd2 winners saw 2 trends v. 1: Entrants mimicked 1 and therefore 2 winners were differented from 1 winners in placement and throw-away towers were defended with 3-4 v. 1-2 solders to win. I picked a strategy that is different from 1-2 and increases throw-away defense slightly. |
621 | 621 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 32 | 32 | Fight for the top two, plus the center |
629 | 629 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 10 | 21 | 29 | 22 | 11 | 4 | Created a slightly skewed normal distribution centered on 7 then mapped 100 soldiers across that distribution! |
632 | 632 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 25 | 26 | |
641 | 641 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 15 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 0 | I abandoned the first and last castles as not worth fighting over and focused on castles a little before and after the center that other teams might neglect. |
648 | 648 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | All of the troops at the first castle higher than 5 |
662 | 662 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 32 | 42 | 0 | I only need to win 3 castles, assuming people focus on 10, I decided to ignore it an focus on the next three and then power creep 9 and 8 in case people had the same idea as I did. |
665 | 665 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 21 | 18 | 9 | Zeroed out castle 1 and 2 since 3 points is small potatoes. Created a constraint that castle 3-10 had to be at least (Round One Median +1). Created 12 opponents, 5 winners from round 1, 5 winners from round 2, 2 opponents of my making. Used excel solver to maximize number of wins out of 12. Essentially creating an optimal solution to beat all 10 named winners with the additional requirement that each castle above castle 2 should be above the median and therefore more than 50% likely to be captured by me in any given game |
667 | 667 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 11 | 0 | 22 | 28 | 31 | 0 | 0 | Strongly attacked with the most likely castles to reach 28. |
668 | 668 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 0 | 28 | 0 | |
669 | 669 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 11 | 21 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 23 | Just kinda throwing some troops like the US Govt throws money at the army |
672 | 672 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 23 | 2 | 29 | All-in on 3,7,8,10 |
673 | 673 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 11 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 27 | 31 | I tried to place heavier in the 9 and 10 spot to guarantee more points and let the 1 and 2 spots go, as they provide minimal points. I also sacrificed a chicken to Jobu. |
680 | 680 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 23 | 3 | 3 | 33 | 23 | I used k-medoid clustering to find median strategies that represent the most common strategies, then found an allocation of soldiers that beat the 8 most common strategies. I then used that as an initial input to Robbie Ostrow's simulated annealing code from Part 2, which spat out the above. |
681 | 681 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 33 | Choose just a few castles and maximize the chances of winning those. |
689 | 689 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 22 | |
691 | 691 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 14 | 14 | 0 | 24 | 20 | 18 | Assume strategies converge to a Poisson distribution around the lastest averages, and optimise. |
713 | 713 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 25 | 40 | |
728 | 728 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 22 | 25 | 27 | |
729 | 729 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 0 | I guessed that an distribution proportionate to point values will rarely win the 10 and will waste trips on the low-value castles, so I dropped the 10 and the bottom too and then loosely distributed them proportionally from there fight estimating as I wrote on some construction paper with a crayon. |
737 | 737 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 15 | 18 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 28 | 23 | Random ass guessing |
739 | 739 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 2 | 24 | 3 | 22 | 3 | 27 | go for 4 castles that add up to just over half of points: 10, 8, 6 & 4. put some troops for most other castles in case i get wiped out on my targets by someone who sends few or no troops elsewhere. go all in on castles 6 & 4 (4 & 4.5 troops per point) with less investment in castles 10 & 8 (2.7 & 2.5 troops per point). send 0.33-0.43 troops per point to castles 3, 5, 7 & 9. this troop alignment happens to beat the top 10 previous finishers (5 from first round & 5 from second round). the main weakness of this strategy is if someone sends a ton of troops to castles 10, 9, 8 & 7 however not many players seem to take that strategy. the other weakness is an odd-numbered-focused strategy where the opponent sends a ton of troops to castle 10 or 8, plus a moderate number of troops to castles 9, 7, 5, 3, 2 and/or 1. |
760 | 760 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 27 | 32 | 18 | 4 | I am modifying a model of a weighted bell curve, giving least priority to castles that have the least effective in point value, but also avoiding major battles for the top castles, which are relatively equivalent in value. Also trying to beat people who tend to round off or beat people who round, though that might be overthinking it. |
768 | 768 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 12 | 16 | 0 | 33 | 34 | 3 | Trying to win 9, 8, 6, and 5, and hoping I can steal some of the others. |
769 | 769 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 21 | 2 | 25 | 3 | 29 | 3 | |
772 | 772 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 23 | 16 | 13 | 17 | 23 | Inverted bell curve for the top castles, leaving ineffective castles empty. |
773 | 773 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 | 14 | 21 | 21 | 30 | 0 | Ill sacrifice the extremes and try to take the bulk of the points in the middle |
776 | 776 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 17 | 1 | 21 | 10 | 33 | |
780 | 780 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 16 | 16 | 18 | 35 | 5 | |
787 | 787 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 20 | 0 | 40 | 25 | 0 | Choose four castles whose total point value is 28. Go all out for them. |
791 | 791 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 35 | 35 | A gross misunderstanding of all logic |
801 | 801 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 21 | 24 | 33 | 0 | Avoided overcommit on 10. Attempted to stack 9 and upper middle. |
804 | 804 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 0 | 20 | just felt intuitively good |
806 | 806 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 33 | 34 | Go big or go home |
818 | 818 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 34 | 34 | I don't want to lose any large castle by a narrow margin, as this would be a significant waste of troops. If I win a large castle narrowly, this is the best scenario, but an overwhelming loss is also acceptable (since it will cost my opponent many troops to achieve this, and therefore give me numerical superiority elsewhere). It's like the electoral college! In the previous rounds, players deployed troop amounts on the large castles that were either very small or very large. My strategy depends on my expectation that this pattern will repeat itself. I chose all of my troop placements with this in mind, determined not to lose any large castle narrowly against either of those strategies. I invested heavily into castles 9 and 10, expecting to win their points almost every time. If I win one or both of them narrowly, then this is a significant boon to my efficiency. If I win them overwhelmingly, this is not as good, but for 19 points I'm willing to take the risk. I expect to defeat most players who conduct a predictable attack on one or both of these castles. If I lose either of these castles after such a large investment then I probably lose the match. I expect to do well in castles 3, 6, 7, and 8. I'm vulnerable to opponents who attack three or more of these simultaneously with medium-sized forces while conceding castles 9 and 10, as some top finishers did in the first round, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. Any two of these mid-range castles, plus the 19 points above will give me the 28 points necessary for the win. Castles 4 and 5 seem to have been highly overvalued in the earlier rounds, so I did not contest them at all. I am hoping to take an overwhelming loss here against opponents who try this again. If I lose them narrowly, that's unfortunate, but it won't matter too much. My path to 28 points is fairly difficult to block even without them. |
822 | 822 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 30 | 2 | 30 | 2 | 34 | 0 | 0 | Three eyed raven told me |
823 | 823 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 25 | 35 | Just a hunch I had based on previous editions |
825 | 825 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 23 | 27 | 31 | 0 | All focused on the fewest castles needed to win, avoiding the highest and lowest valued. |
830 | 830 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 1 | 21 | 2 | 23 | 3 | 37 | Felt right :) |
838 | 838 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 18 | 30 | 35 | 0 | |
839 | 839 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 17 | 19 | 21 | 0 | 1 and 2 are low-value; 10 will be too heavily contested |
844 | 844 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 18 | 19 | 21 | 30 | 3 | 1 | Try to have a large enough force where opponents would not expect it. |
848 | 848 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 3 | 4 | 26 | Trying a 4-castle deployment, as it's just easier to rely on. Throwing a few around in the larger unattended castles in order to protect against other 4-castle deployments. This mostly beats the recent winners and isn't the obvious 10-8-7-6 that stomps the last round. I could be in trouble if people really try to jump on 10, though. |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited
CREATE TABLE "riddler-castles/castle-solutions-3" ( "Castle 1" INTEGER, "Castle 2" INTEGER, "Castle 3" INTEGER, "Castle 4" INTEGER, "Castle 5" INTEGER, "Castle 6" INTEGER, "Castle 7" INTEGER, "Castle 8" INTEGER, "Castle 9" INTEGER, "Castle 10" INTEGER, "Why did you choose your troop deployment?" TEXT );