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 9 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? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
364 | 364 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | Nash Equilibrium |
113 | 113 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 99 | 0 | Just Cause |
882 | 882 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 77 | 2 | Give up on castle 10 since lots of people will go for that. Try and guarantee 9 points from Castle 9. Never send 0 or 1 units to a castle since other folks will try that. Throw a few extra at Castle 7 and 8 in case others are thinking similar to me. |
117 | 117 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 25 | 55 | 1 | |
279 | 279 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 51 | 0 | It adds up to >20 points and I don't think anyone's gonna care as much as I do about the ones I chose? Idk though |
779 | 779 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 11 | 1 | 21 | 51 | 1 | I assumed 10, being the most valuable, would be the most likely to see the bulk of enemy troops, by leaving only 1 soldier, I can still claim victory if they ignore it, but lose little to an attack. (Same theory for 1-4 and 7). Since 28 points are needed for victory, and I'm assuming a 10 point loss, the bulk of my troops are stationed at castle 9. With significant forces at 5, 6 and 8. If i can claim these four, i have victory. If i fail on some of these, the single soldiers in other forts hopefully claim unopposed victory. |
653 | 653 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 25 | 50 | 3 | I gave at least two to all the castles so I can try to bank some smaller points and I think if my opponent tries the same he'll probably only throw one out there. Then, I targeted Castle 9 with Castle 8 as a back up, in case they throw all of their points at 10. Then I stagger the rest I guess |
705 | 705 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 50 | 2 | Spread troops to high point value locations but saved on troops sacrificing the highest. |
891 | 891 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 25 | 50 | 0 | Forces concentrated on alternative 4 castles to win |
1157 | 1157 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 30 | 50 | 0 | Random Hunch |
895 | 895 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 46 | 46 | I'm predicting that most of your audience is pretty smart, and will have worked out that you only need 1, 8, 9 and 10 to win, and will have placed 25 soldiers on each of those castles. This strategy is designed specifically to beat that. |
61 | 61 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 35 | 44 | 1 | focus on castle 8 and 9 with the assumption that castle 10 is likely going to be taken and castle 1 and 2 will have 1 soldier brought to them |
126 | 126 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 11 | 2 | 22 | 44 | 2 | I was looking for four castles that would add up to 28 points, the minimum required to win. I found I could not do this without castle 9. I chose to leave out castle 7 because 5 and 6 should be easier to get. I sent token forces to 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10 to force my opponent to keep those covered. That left me 88 troops. I sent half of those to castle 9, which I assumed would be contested heavily. Half of what was left was sent to castle 8. The remaining troops were split between 5 and 6. |
644 | 644 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 15 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 42 | 6 | This strategy focuses on disrupting any focused deployment strategies that players may build based on previous winners. In previous editions of this game, 6 troops win most battles for most castles. So I should win anytime someone chooses to send a small number of troops. I'm also virtually guaranteed to win castles 4 and 9 due to my excessive forces in both locations. The result is that I will steal a castle from all players focused on either high value, or midrange castles, preventing them from winning one of the castles core to their strategy, while taking all of the castles they chose to ignore. |
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. |
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. |
1037 | 1037 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 41 | 45 | Focus almost entirely on the big castles, but spread some soldiers out for easy pickups. |
277 | 277 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 35 | 40 | 0 | Cheapest way to 28 total points. It did make me place one troop in castle one for some reason. Would rather have put that soldier at 4. |
325 | 325 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 20 | 40 | 8 | Thought it looked cool |
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 |
755 | 755 | 4 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 40 | Only need 22.5 points to win. Figured 40 would win most of the time at 9 & 10, so I only need 3.5 |
840 | 840 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 0 | 40 | 29 | 55 points to win, this is a race to 28. The quickest way to that is winning 9 & 10 and then then figuring how best to win one big-ish castle and win/split a small-ish (but not smallest) one. I focused on 7 because I thought the battle would be bigger for 8, and then 3 to win or split. That takes me to at least 27.5 with the hope that one of the other towers breaks my way (particularly the 1 point as a win or split). |
852 | 852 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 40 | I wanted to deploy high numbers of troops to the highest value castles to get as close to victory at the beginning as possible. From there, it only takes 6 more points to win the game, so I put all my remaining troops in Castle 6 to have the best chance of taking the points needed to win. |
1027 | 1027 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 0 | Most people will try locking in 10, I'd rather let them spend their points since 9 is almost equal. Further it allows me to hit a few more relatively high value targets further down |
1179 | 1179 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 30 | 40 | 0 | 28 is the minimum number of points to win. I sent the least number to castle 4 because I anticipated that it would not need to be taken with higher numbers in most scenarios. |
1258 | 1258 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 40 | 40 | 1 | 1 to every castle to ensure I capture any uncontested castle. Most people will likely focus on the highest value castles and you need 28 total points to win so castles 8/9/10 would do it and splitting troops 3 ways to grab those I would still take 8 and 9. |
1288 | 1288 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 40 | 45 | Go nearly all in on the most valuable castles. Plus cheap wins on the least. |
850 | 850 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 30 | 39 | 0 | Highest % troops outside Castle 10 |
714 | 714 | 4 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 40 | Focus on getting required 28 points to win by targeting top tiers to make up bulk of points, and a few lower tier castles to add in just enough points. |
841 | 841 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 38 | 34 | A few simulations to find good strategies, and then searching for one that would perform well against those. |
208 | 208 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 37 | 40 | |
308 | 308 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 37 | 37 | Prioritize high value targets. Eschew low value targets. Skirt mid-value conflict. Steal low-mid value clinchers. Try not to optimize based off of previous datasets, to avoid both adjustments, as well as adjustments-to-anticipated-adjustments. |
332 | 332 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 18 | 1 | 37 | 1 | Win Castle #9 and the other castels that seem overlooked. |
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. |
619 | 619 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 3 | 13 | 4 | 37 | 4 | Defensive strategy, hope opponent went all in on 9. |
933 | 933 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 31 | 4 | 37 | 4 | Try to guarantee 9 and 7 and pick up 12+ elsewhere |
1008 | 1008 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 24 | 6 | 8 | 37 | 8 | The big lesson from round 2 was that it's really effective to invest heavily in only four castles, totalling 28 points. Not only did all the top deployments from round 2 follow that strategy, but deployments optimized against the first two rounds' results (and deployments optimized against optimized deployments!) follow it also, sometimes even more strongly. That has left me perfectly torn between two opposite approaches - take the obvious lesson, invest heavily in 4 castles and try to win that way (which would mean a deployment like 0-0-11-0-0-23-1-2-36-27); or assume that everybody will try 4-castle approaches now, and optimize against them while still scoring decently against other plans. I've changed my mind about a dozen times, and finally decided to do the latter. I'm tackling the 4-castlers head-on in castles 3, 6 and 9 (a 4-castle plan needs to go through at least one of those), and putting more than just a token presence in castles 7, 8 and 10 because simulations. The problem is that unlike the 4-castle approach, which is essentially dumb-plan-proof, my approach loses to simple deployments like 1-3-5-7-9-11-13-15-17-19 or even the dreaded "put ten guys in every castle and pray"; and because my presence in castle 3 isn't that great I'm somewhat vulnerable to a 10-8-7-3 plan too. But the advantage is that fewer people will likely try this approach than the 4-castle one; even if the 4-castle approach turned out to be the winning approach in general, there's no guarantee that I personally would win; whereas if this is the basic winning approach, my chances of winning or placing high should be good. Essentially, I'm gambling that not too many people will submit really simple and obvious deployments. |
1196 | 1196 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 37 | 28 | To win just over 50% of the points with the least number of castles by deploying enough troops to four castles to win 28/55 points and abandoning the other six |
1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 18 | 2 | 28 | 36 | 2 | DONT KNOW |
225 | 225 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 16 | 9 | 4 | 17 | 36 | 4 | Chose a deployment that defeats all previous top 5 deployments. |
245 | 245 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 19 | 1 | 27 | 1 | 36 | 1 | I needed to contest every castle in the event someone did not place any troops there and I could get it for "free". Then I figured out there are 55 total points available, so I needed to get 28 to win. If you divide the points available of each castle by the 55 total, you can get a % of points for each. If you then multiply by 100 you get what each castle is "worth" in manpower. I figured if I roughly double the "expected worth" in manpower, I will win the castle more often than not. I then picked a combination of castles to focus on that if I won them, would give me 28 pts. I wanted to avoid #10 because I expect there will be a lot of fighting for that one, so I concentrated on 9, 7 and 5, to give me a good base of 21 pts. I then focused on the bottom 3 castles because I expect them to be lightly guarded. If I happen to "steal" a castle from someone since they put no one there, even better. |
355 | 355 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 36 | 35 | limit losing troops, look for highest return on investment |
461 | 461 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 21 | 0 | 22 | 36 | 2 | |
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. |
697 | 697 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 17 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 36 | 0 | I need 28 VPs. So I aimed for an unusual combination of getting them. As long as I get castles 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9, I have my 28 points and have no need to get any others. I will lose only to people who outbid me on one of these five, but those who don't bid 0 on any, or even multiple, castles, will have fewer troops to deploy on those five, so my chances are reasonably good. I expect to lose to those who max out on castles 9 and 10 but to win against a good percentage of other contestants. I made a late change to go for 3+ points from 1, 2 and 3 combined |
1071 | 1071 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 28 | Better than Mike |
1141 | 1141 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 13 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 36 | 28 | Similar to last time's champion, optimised against first and second submissions and solutions optimised against them with more weighting given to the latter. |
1262 | 1262 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 17 | 6 | 21 | 6 | 36 | 6 | |
54 | 54 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 10 | 20 | 35 | 22 | I went top heavy and ignored the low point castles due to their inefficiency as the are 1.8 digits Soldiers per point. |
64 | 64 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 24 | Magic |
205 | 205 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 35 | 35 | For the goal of winning 28 points, I plan to take castle 9 and 10. Then win any two among castle 7-9. I'm avoiding castle 4 - - 5 as they seemed to be hotly contested in prior matches |
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) |
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. |
344 | 344 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 14 | 15 | 5 | 5 | 35 | 10 | |
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 |
383 | 383 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 12 | 31 | 35 | 5 | I earn enough victory points from castles 6, 7, 8 and 9 so I focused on them. I put at least an army in each castle to prevent free wins. I only sent a few armies to castle 10 because I felt others would devout a lot of troops there. I didn't want to waste mine in a large battle there but I put some in case others have my same strategy of avoiding a large battle at castle 10. I also put a great deal in castles 8 and 9. I wanted to nearly guarantee victories at those castles. |
423 | 423 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 35 | 32 | Try to obtain 9 and 10 over all others, and for those who can beat me in one or both; punish them by taking other castles they hopefully skimp on. |
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. |
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 | |
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. |
780 | 780 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 16 | 16 | 18 | 35 | 5 | |
791 | 791 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 35 | 35 | A gross misunderstanding of all logic |
836 | 836 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 35 | 30 | No modelling, just a ten second guess on what others would do on average. (It's a no stakes game.) 28 is needed to win. 10 + 9 + 8 + 1 suffices. Naturally you'd expect them to be hotly contested, but this is well above the average content of those castles so let's let the last two round's data suggest it is worth a go attacking them. So let's sacrifice losing to players that take alternative strategies to see if this wins enough rounds against common submissions. And taking a complete guess that the peak of the contest will move from castle 8 to castle 9. |
838 | 838 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 18 | 30 | 35 | 0 | |
939 | 939 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 13 | 14 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 35 | 26 | Similar strategy as Round 2 winners, with some small shifts that seek to contest castles 9 and 10 more vigorously while devoting a few more troops to potentially undervalued castles like castle 6. |
958 | 958 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 16 | 2 | 27 | 35 | 2 | total guess |
1002 | 1002 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 18 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 35 | 11 | |
1041 | 1041 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 10 | 21 | 5 | 5 | 35 | 4 | Noticing that winning strategies go big on 2 high value castles and 2 low midvalue castles. Decided to go all in on 1 high value castle - and try 3 midlevel castles that would be split evenly lower for anyone throwing points at a secondary high value castle. And raised the lower bar up to 4 for castles >3 points as easy gimmes in case people copy last winning strategy. |
1063 | 1063 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 0 | |
1064 | 1064 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 35 | We go all in on the minimum value to win. |
1076 | 1076 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 6 | 0 | 35 | 30 | I went with my gut |
1230 | 1230 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 20 | 22 | 35 | 0 | |
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. |
1240 | 1240 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 30 | 35 | 5 | Trying to secure a baseline of 17 and steal either 10 or 7+3 as well as the first castle |
1248 | 1248 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 40 | The middle castles seem to be the most hotly contested and the lower ones were completely ignored. Secure the most valuable pieces with overwhelming force and pick up cheap points at the bottom. |
1291 | 1291 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 24 | 35 | 0 | Trying to focus on getting 28 victory points while sacrificing the "10" assuming most people will want the big win. |
95 | 95 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 15 | 11 | 3 | 8 | 23 | 34 | 2 | Random, except for deciding to let the low castles go without much of a fight. |
102 | 102 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 34 | 39 | Ties are wins |
130 | 130 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 12 | 32 | 3 | 34 | 3 | Lots of folk went for 7-8 or 9-10 previously. I figure few will go for 7-9. With those in the bag, I need another 12 points. I'm hoping for 2-4-6, but also spreading out my options to get lucky against a poorly defended 8, 10, and 5. |
133 | 133 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 34 | 28 | Anticipating another adjustment after the second round. Min/maxing numbers to reach the 28 point threshold. |
169 | 169 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 15 | 10 | 26 | 34 | 0 | Clustered to win as many points against last time's winners. |
179 | 179 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 0 | 34 | 34 | |
233 | 233 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 2 | 23 | 34 | 4 | 28 by way of 2,3,6,8,9 instead of 4,5,9,10 or 1(2),3,4,5,7,8. Mixed strategy which emphasizes 3 and 6 over 4 and 5 and splits the first two rounds emphasis on 7,8 and 9,10 by focusing on 8,9 |
310 | 310 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 16 | 1 | 34 | 10 | I assigned troops proportional to castle value, then sacrificed castle 8 and a bit of castle 10 to target castle 9. Just to change it up. |
359 | 359 | 5 | 8 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 21 | 1 | 34 | 1 | Aim to get 28 points. Look to beat prior winners. Rely on intuition and a quick excel check (keep time invested at ten minutes). |
395 | 395 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 21 | 34 | 12 | Starting with Castle 1, it is the first 9 terms of the Fibonacci Sequence (1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34). ΣF9=88, 100-88=12 troops remain for Castle 10. I don't think I'm likely to win, but isn't it more important to be beautiful?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93lrosBEW-Q |
459 | 459 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 2 | 34 | 34 | Never send just 1 so that you win vs any solo scouts, focus on 9 and 10 to try and insure 19 out of 28 required points, aim for over average on 3 and 6 to try and secure the 8 additional points needed for a win while hoping that victories over singles allow for any shortfall, sacrifice the 1 pt castle as winning it fails to make up for a split anywhere else that will determine the game. |
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. |
565 | 565 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 27 | 6 | 34 | 5 | I picked something that would defeat the top 3 in both prior battles. I added one army in #1 to catch those with zero in #1, for a 9+7+6+5+1=28 win. I put five in #10 to catch those who put two to four in it. I think my most-likely wins will be 9+8+7+6, 10+9+7+6, 10+9+7+3, 10+8+7+6, 9+7+6+5+3, 9+7+6+5+1, 8+7+6+5+3. I will lose to anyone who is heavier in 10+8+5+4+2 or 10+8+5+4+1. |
592 | 592 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 19 | 2 | 20 | 34 | 2 | I do whatever your mom tells me to do. |
603 | 603 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 18 | 21 | 34 | 2 | Assume no-one leaves any with 0, so 2 beats the 1s. Assume most people aim for 10. Load up on next highest in descending priority. |
609 | 609 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 34 | 34 | Slanging it |
618 | 618 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 34 | 4 | |
695 | 695 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 22 | 34 | 32 | Seems like it'll do the trick often enough. Not even gonna worry about the meta. |
735 | 735 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 34 | 43 | win 10/9 and two average others |
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. |
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. |
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 |
909 | 909 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 15 | 10 | 34 | 26 | Looking at the last two top deployments and data breakdowns, the top deployments were throwing the bank at 9 and slightly less for 10. My strategy is top-heavy; it is very dependent on winning the top end and all but sacrificing the lower end (one soldier per castle for the bottom five will claim undefended territories and nothing else). The focus was on beating the winning strategies from the last cycle. 34 for castle 9 and 26 for castle 10 beats the top four cleanly, for a cost of 60 soldiers. Castle 7 gets some value play, too, so 15 goes there, and 10 each for castles 6 and 8. This leaves five soldiers to pick off anything undefended; our strategy is to win all or nearly all of the top 5, and then anything below is gravy. Weaknesses are if they can claim the 6-8 and not sacrifice the bottom to do so; a tie or better on one of those three and winning 9 and 10 should bring victory. |
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 );