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
1,321 rows sorted by Castle 5 descending
This data as json, copyable, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: Castle 1, Castle 2, 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? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
719 | 719 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 41 | 7 | 7 | 34 | 1 | 1 | Starting with the goal of reaching 28 points, I went with a balance of offense and defense. The distribution I was shooting for was winning 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Leaving 9 and 10 pretty much open would let my opponent waste much of their capitol on those, leaving only 8 and 5 as 'battles,' but ones in which my opponent would have less to spend. Seeing the distributions of the previous 2 rounds, 6 and 7 seemed pretty safe, so I spent my soldiers on 5 and 8, leaving token 1's to leverage against random strategies with zeros. |
168 | 168 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 30 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 30 | I put the last 2 set of winners in an excel spreadsheet. I set it up with functions so I could see which battles I won and who won the war. I noticed the main strategies focused on: a) 10, 9, 5, 4 b) 8, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2 c) 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 2 I decided to make sure my strategy would defeat each of the past top 5 players. I found a few combinations that worked and noticed that they had something in common: brake the cores of the main strategies, but don't give up all the others in the process. For some reason, 5 and 4 seem to be the most popular choices, so it seemed essential to steal one of these. I chose 5 because it's worth more points. The 2nd part is trickier, because now half the players go for 9 and 10, and the other half go for 8 and 7. I decided to be bold in 10, dedicating far more troops than almost any of the other players would. Then, put enough of the remaining troops spread across the other three options. This is to increase the odds of winning at least 2 of three. The remaining troops are placed among the last numbers to get victories against people neglecting them. |
221 | 221 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 30 | 30 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 13 | |
464 | 464 | 2 | 2 | 26 | 13 | 30 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 5 | 8 | I rearranged a previous winner's deployment and prayed. |
503 | 503 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 30 | 36 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 6 | Trying to beat more people so i assumed that people either put a lot of soldiers in the higher castles or none at all(1-5 soldiers "just in case") |
815 | 815 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 30 | 30 | I’m guaranteed at least one if not two high value castles while still having a chance at all of them |
1123 | 1123 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | I decided it was easier to capture alot of lesser castles |
193 | 193 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 27 | 27 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 20 | Achieving the required points while committing to the fewest possible castles to ensure that those who committed troops elsewhere would not be able to achieve the required amount of points. |
88 | 88 | 15 | 15 | 7 | 2 | 26 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 18 | Last time winners focused on the middle. I'm focusing on the edges |
108 | 108 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 26 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 26 | 2 | The total point possibility is 55, so you need 28 to win. From there, troop (resource) distribution is a mix of math (what are the best combinations that can lead to 28?) and human behavior speculation (metagaming). Castle 10 is a trap and a good way to get your opponent to waste resources, since they are working with incomplete information, so I threw only 2 troops there (to minimize my investment while hedging against other players who choose 0 or 1). Castles 1-7 add up to 28, so a popular strategy may be to aggressively claim them. The 26 in Castle 5 is designed to disrupt that, as players who go for this strategy may emphasize their investments in Castles 6 and 7, and will be afraid to over-invest in 5 without hedging earlier castles accordingly. Meanwhile, there are enough troops in castles 6-9 to yield likely wins, while hedges in the lower castles may secure additional value. |
360 | 360 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 20 | 26 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | There are 55 points available for capture. The first to 28 points wins. No one can win unless they capture AT LEAST 4 castles. Most people would likely try to capture the most valuable castles first and weight their troops towards those objectives. But those who spend 50ish troops on castles 9/10 only have 50ish troops to spend on the remaining 8 castles, needing to win at least 9 points, between those 8 castles. I could see a 2, 7, 9, 10, strategy working well enough compared to last year's 4, 5, 9, 10, meta. By all but abandoning 9 and 10, i should like take the other 8 castles in most scenarios mainly due to the fact that the enemy had no more troops to spend. I put substantial enough troops in each castle that no one can steal cheap points without investing a fair amount into those castles in the first place. Against last year's winners, I would have won: Vatter: 36-19 Winder: 33.5-21.5 Shafer: 36-19 Schmidt: 35-20 Trick: 36-19 |
112 | 112 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 25 | Trying to pick up 5, 9 and 10. Get enough value in the early battles to pick up over half the points. |
238 | 238 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 35 | 34 | Copy the same strategy as last time, but more extreme (thinking people are going to go back to strategy 1) |
462 | 462 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 25 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 35 | |
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! |
1120 | 1120 | 5 | 6 | 12 | 17 | 25 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Collect leftover high-value castles, sweep the low value castles. |
941 | 941 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 24 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 34 | Last time people frequently went with a strategy where they stacked castles that gave them exactly 28 points. I'm trying to steal one of the ones they stacked, while picking up the ones they left relatively undefended. |
1118 | 1118 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 19 | 24 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | With the notable exception of the linear deployment strategy ( distribute more troops linearly over increasing castle value), almost every strategy depends on securing 2 - 3 spots in castles 6 - 10, and then 2 - 3 in 1 - 5. My strategy should scoop the ignored castles in 6 - 10 and sweep castles 1 - 5 on average. Most pick-4 strategies (where you try to perfectly distribute on 4 castles to hit >=28 points, e.g. 10, 9, 8, 1 or 10, 9, 5, 4 etc) will lose to this strategy by virtue of not allocating enough to secure their least valuable, but critical castle. The pick-4 that my strategy is most vulnerable to (10, 9, 8 ,1) is also likely the least common because of how precarious it is to try to take all 3 of 8 - 10 given those are critical for other pick-4 strategies). 7 is the deployment number for 6 - 10 to counter people who might arbitrarily station 5 at each one and the people putting up 6 to counter that. |
20 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 23 | 23 | 24 | 24 | 1 | 1 | Trying to capture the mid-high castles and sacrifice the others |
149 | 149 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 2 | 2 | Trying to capture all of the middles and maybe steal the top 2 |
182 | 182 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 19 | 23 | 7 | 7 | 19 | 4 | 5 | I just picked a strategy that would beat the top 5 in the most recent battle and also the top 5 in the first battle |
281 | 281 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 23 | 8 | 2 | 21 | 28 | 2 | Ensure I will win against all 0 deployments and try to dominate 9, 8 and 5. |
307 | 307 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 23 | 4 | 4 | 28 | 32 | 6 | Picked some castles to go for, crossed my fingers no one else goes for them |
323 | 323 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 23 | 1 | 1 | 25 | 35 | 2 | My goal was to win 8 and 9. With that I only need 11 more points to secure victory. I sacked 6 and 7 given that they were low in the last one and more people are likely to focus on those. That leaves me with needing to win 5 and 3 and then either 1 and 2 or 4. I sacked 4 given that it was high in both prior events. |
409 | 409 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 16 | 23 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 23 | 20 | |
649 | 649 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 20 | 23 | 13 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 24 | Counter Strategy |
668 | 668 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 0 | 28 | 0 | |
670 | 670 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 23 | 23 | 27 | 11 | 1 | 2 | Decided to weigh 7-5 the heaviest, as they are accountable for a good chunk of points. Didn't want to lose 9 or 10 if they were abandoned, so I put a few there (but mostly empty). Then I concentrated some on 8 (expecting that it would be defended less than 5-7 but not as minimally as 9-10). The lower values were kind of chosen randomly. |
675 | 675 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 23 | 15 | 3 | 26 | 3 | 26 | Past winning strategies seemed to either focus on 7&8 or 9&10, so I've focused on the 10 and 8 to try to win the higher of each pair. Also previously neglected was 6, so I went for that as well, and went for the jugular on 5 since that pushes the total over the halfway mark points-wise. The others I put minimal investment in, though with 3 soldiers to the higher-end castles since 2's are common scouting forces. |
875 | 875 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 23 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 34 | 24 | Beat the top player from last time then designed a strategy to beat that then designed a strategy to beat that |
908 | 908 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 23 | 6 | 11 | 11 | 23 | 22 | First, leave nothing undefended. Next, beat an naive even distribution (10 everywhere) and a distribution that concedes the first 5 and doubles up on the rest. Bonus that it beats most of the previous winners and the top 10 from 10 million random strategies I ran on the computer. |
1029 | 1029 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 18 | 23 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 34 | 0 | I concentrated on winning more of the lower value castles. |
46 | 46 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 22 | 22 | 17 | 17 | 6 | 6 | I started with attempting to punish those who didn't send enough troops to the 'Extremes' (Castles 1-4 & Castle 9-10). Sending less than 5 will result in a loss at 9 & 10, and sending 0 or 1 to the first 4 will result in a loss. Next, I want to win at least 2 (hopefully 3) of Castles 5-8 so I went with 22 at 5 & 6 since previous winners from the first 2 iterations sent a max of 21. Finally, I distributed my last troops evenly to Castle 7 & 8. |
67 | 67 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 22 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 0 | 35 | Because this is what my future self told me to pick. |
121 | 121 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 22 | 25 | 5 | 5 | 23 | 16 | Using last results. Gave up castle 4 and redistributed higher.. |
131 | 131 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 22 | 12 | 8 | 14 | 6 | 30 | I chose a strategy that could beat each of the top 5 from the last two times, could beat an even distribution, could beat a focused attack at the top, and could beat a (10,0,0,0,0,0,0,30,30,30) strategy. The first strategy I found was (1,2,2,18,1,6,2,33,11,24). Then, I used random sampling to see if I could find strategies that would beat my strategy. Out of a sample of 200, I found 84. I compared these 84 against the original 13 strategies, and found 1 that beat all of them. This strategy was (0,1,1,6,22,12,8,14,6,30). However, your entry form won't let me put 0 for castle 1, so I switched castle 1 and 2. This seems to work just fine as well. |
201 | 201 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 22 | 2 | 2 | 24 | 33 | 2 | Why did you force at least 1 unit to go to castle 1? |
276 | 276 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 22 | 1 | 26 | 34 | 3 | 5 | Trying to avoid over-spending on castles the opponent will deploy to. |
334 | 334 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 22 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 31 | Before looking at the historical data, I settled on a 10-9-5-4 distribution, with individual soldiers heading to remaining castles so as not to completely cede any points. Once I looked at the last match, I saw that this had been a popular choice for the leaders, confirming its soundness. My draft distribution lost against those leaders, though, due to weakness in the 8-7-6 range. I also noticed that the bulk of forces were being sent against castle 9, producing uncertainty around the success of even a healthy amount of force there. To adjust, I reduced allocation to castle 9, redistributing those troops across castles 9-8-7-6, but left my highest concentrations at 10, 5, and 4. I ultimately ceded castle 1, because I assessed the value of an additional soldier to win a 4+ castle as higher than avoiding the 1 point loss (and most likely, the Battle for Castle One will be a quiet 0-0 match, yielding a free .5 point anyway). |
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. |
475 | 475 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 17 | 22 | 16 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 13 | I took the top 5 winners from the last 2 times, along with the averages for each castle from the last 2 times, then maximized the number of points scored if my distribution faced each of these 12 opponents. |
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. |
535 | 535 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 22 | 6 | 27 | 31 | 4 | 4 | Looked to see where the past winners had shifted their troops from game 1 to game 2. Identified 5, 7, & 8 as places to pick up points while also noticing that Castle 6 is under attacked by 7/10 past winners. My hope is that those who only send a very token force to 9 & 10 (2 or 3 seem the most common) will lose to my 4 troops, while not costing me very much on the 3 main ones I focused on. |
561 | 561 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 30 | 0 | 0 | |
703 | 703 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 17 | 22 | 22 | 13 | 4 | 4 | 7 | I am inevitable. |
756 | 756 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 22 | 20 | 12 | 12 | 9 | 7 | pure guess, did not look at previous games |
889 | 889 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 15 | 22 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 33 | 21 | |
928 | 928 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 22 | 4 | 8 | 10 | 23 | 17 | I used an excel sheet and found a strategy by trial and error and some calculations that would best every previous winning line up and that would also beat the average line up. |
929 | 929 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 22 | 4 | 8 | 10 | 23 | 17 | I used an excel sheet and found a strategy by trial and error and some calculations that would best every previous winning line up and that would also beat the average line up. |
991 | 991 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 34 | I only need 28 points to win and castles 9&10 seemed undervalued by the average player. I’ve gone all in on four castles. |
1031 | 1031 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 22 | 4 | 22 | 22 | 4 | 22 | |
1081 | 1081 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 22 | 16 | 16 | 22 | 2 | 2 | I'm hoping to pick up on points in the middle, also I picked slightly above nice round numbers (e.g. 16 instead of 15) hoping to win some castles against people who chose the round numbers |
1195 | 1195 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 22 | 24 | 1 | 4 | 25 | 22 | I wrote a half-baked genetic algorithm that evaluated strategies against random strategies, entries from the previous contests, and the top strategies from the previous generation, and then chose the strategy that most often received the highest fitness of its generation. |
1208 | 1208 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 22 | 24 | 24 | 6 | 6 | 6 | I tried to guess what would beat the people who tried to guess how to beat the last winning strategy. 1 up the people who tried to 1 up the low number of soldiers for the high valued towers. Assume I win one one of those which means I can lose towers 1, 2, 3 and sometimes 4 depending on which high value tower I won. |
1281 | 1281 | 2 | 9 | 3 | 17 | 22 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 23 | |
1282 | 1282 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 22 | 22 | 32 | 4 | 4 | 6 | Win the middle |
1302 | 1302 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 22 | 23 | 22 | 2 | 2 | 10 | |
101 | 101 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 21 | 17 | 2 | 3 | 24 | 22 | Last times winner but more even alignment |
111 | 111 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 1 | 1 | I sacrificed 9 and 10 hoping that my enemy would focus a lot of soldiers on them and instead tried to capture a lot of of the mid value castles. |
176 | 176 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 21 | 22 | 3 | 24 | 27 | 0 | Key is to get to 28. Wanted to stack as few castles as possible to increase probability of winning those. Left 7, 4, and 3 as contingency plans in case someone was doing the same. |
237 | 237 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 21 | 2 | 2 | 25 | 28 | 5 | Weighted heavily to certain castles in the aim to almost always win those points |
255 | 255 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 21 | 21 | 12 | 20 | 7 | 3 | 0 | Took average of top 5 winners from first battle, average of top 5 winners from second, and guessed the trend of the top 5 from this battle would look like [0, 0, 0, 15, 16, 0, 0, 0, 39, 30]. Used evolutionary machine learning to find a strategy that would consistently give highest scores against slight variations on the predicted opponent strategy. |
345 | 345 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 12 | 21 | 26 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | I did the math and discovered that 28 points is the magic number. 8, 9, 10 get you 27, and 1-7 get you 28. So, I punted on 8,9,10, expecting most people to stock up on those and give them a free victory there while they use the majority of their troops. Meanwhile, I'll be happy to take all the smaller castles because 28>27. I debated going for 8,9,10 and 1 to take 28 points, or even 2,3,4,6,7,8 to make 28, but figured my first thought would win more often than the other two, which would be harder to distribute troops since 8 would take so many to guarantee the victory. |
356 | 356 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 16 | 21 | 3 | 22 | 32 | 2 | 1 | Savviness and wordsmithographyophillia |
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 |
408 | 408 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 17 | 21 | 17 | 14 | 16 | 5 | 6 | I devised a strategy to beat all ten presented in previous iterations, then I added that strategy and devised the way to beat all ten plus that solution. I repeated several times adding improved solutions to my list to beat. |
434 | 434 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 21 | 5 | 26 | 10 | 10 | 11 | I wanted to defeat the previous champions. The first round winners won by going heavy in 4,5,9,10. The 2nd round they went heavy in some combination that didn't include 9,10. I went for go for 7, 5 and 3. With average values in 8,9,10 in hoping to get one or two of these. |
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. |
599 | 599 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 21 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 32 | 22 | I created a giant spreadsheet that I filled with placements from the previous rounds (with winners on the list twice because they rock). Then I built formulas to calculate my win percentage against them and played with my placements. After lots of testing, I chose a modified Vince Vatter (Round 2 champ who) that performed slightly worse that his Round 2 victory in my experiments. I did this because I figured people would note that leaving 0 or 1 soldier in a castle was a bad move and would start leaving 2 or 3. Basically, I did some math then took a guess as to how the masses would behave. My goal is over 80% victory! |
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 |
761 | 761 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 20 | 21 | 8 | 13 | 20 | 2 | 2 | Optimized against those who optimized against the best strategies from last time. It ended up looking like the strategies of the first time the riddler was posted. |
769 | 769 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 21 | 2 | 25 | 3 | 29 | 3 | |
789 | 789 | 0 | 5 | 9 | 12 | 21 | 19 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 24 | My brother worked on this, and I think he was on the right track. But he failed to account for how many will just use variations of the plans that won last time. I used a set of info Thomas made from your last two warlord games and made a strategy that works almost as well, but specifically targets the winners of the previous two games. My goal here is to have just one or two more soldiers than my enemy in the areas I'm fighting, and abandon the places where my enemy puts the most soldiers. |
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. |
898 | 898 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 21 | 14 | 3 | 33 | 4 | 22 | I ran a monte carlo with all the previous troop deployments, plus a bunch of variations on the previous successful strategy, and it popped out this trimodal distribution. Basically, I optimized a trimodal distribution to beat optimized bimodal deployments. |
923 | 923 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 21 | 11 | 26 | 16 | 3 | 3 | Trying to pick 1 more than round numbers. Concentrating on the mid-value castles |
999 | 999 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 6 | 21 | 1 | 16 | 11 | 11 | 21 | trying to beat common breakpoints/ round numbers |
1045 | 1045 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 16 | 21 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 32 | 22 | Best of last two plus some ai |
1057 | 1057 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 16 | 21 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 32 | 21 | variation on a theme |
1066 | 1066 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 21 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 32 | 23 | better than Vince hahaha |
1071 | 1071 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 28 | Better than Mike |
1097 | 1097 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 16 | 21 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 32 | 16 | variation on a theme |
1103 | 1103 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 15 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 17 | minimize cost/point based on previous responses |
1104 | 1104 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 16 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 17 | minimize cost |
1137 | 1137 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 21 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 33 | 30 | This combo won 100 simulation rounds in a row using randomized, previous champs, and tweaks of previous round winners. |
1139 | 1139 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 17 | 21 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 32 | 15 | evolutionary ai found a better solution |
1193 | 1193 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 16 | 21 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 32 | 22 | This is almost an exact replica from the dataset that the winner submitted last time, except one troop moving from Castle 6 to Castle 7. It won 84% of it's games against the database, plus over 95% of the games against the partial optimal database that my father and I created. |
1211 | 1211 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 16 | 21 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 32 | 21 | simulations |
1233 | 1233 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 21 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 35 | 24 | Optimised against top fives from both runs and median from the first. Depends on snatching the top two bolstered by four and five, these four wins would total a bare minimum of 28 of 55 points. Sometimes snatches the 6–8. If most strengthened the top prizes a bit, yeah, I'm screwed. Didn't want to do a deep dive into the complete data. |
1279 | 1279 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 13 | 21 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 34 | 3 | f i b a g u c c i a e s t h e t i c |
1306 | 1306 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 16 | 21 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 32 | 22 | I built myself a fancy excel spreadsheet of all of the previous submissions, and then attempted to optimize against those. |
1309 | 1309 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 21 | 12 | 26 | 16 | 4 | 4 | Contest everything, but don't commit heavy to the point-heavy (castles 9 & 10) obvious grab strategies that people are likely to employ (similar to the first round of the contest, but countered in round two with a lot of people choosing a 4,5,9,10 strategy). Deployment had to defeat/tie some of the default, non-strategic assignments (e.g., 10 everywhere, 25s in each 7-10, % assignment based on value). Castles 5 (main counter to round two strategies), 7 (main counter to round one strategies), and 8 (some round one strategies) can break a lot of opponent strategies so contesting them is where my main investment took place. It is a bit of a gamble to pick up stray points in low commit castles when my other investments aren't high enough to offset opponent high commits. |
1319 | 1319 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 16 | 21 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 32 | 22 | I used the data from the previous two competitions and this was the highest win rate configuration I could find. |
49 | 49 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 14 | 20 | 3 | 21 | 3 | 25 | 3 | |
64 | 64 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 24 | Magic |
76 | 76 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 16 | 20 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 31 | 18 | Random! |
92 | 92 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 5 | 5 | the plan is to win castles 5,6,7,8 and then hopefully pick up one more somewhere else. |
116 | 116 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 29 | 30 | I'm dumb |
194 | 194 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 17 | 20 | 1 | 2 | 23 | 32 | 3 | saw the best ones from the last 1 and combinated. |
207 | 207 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 30 | 22 | Randomly, kind of based off the previous renditions. |
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 );