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
153 rows where Castle 2 = 3 sorted by Castle 5
This data as json, copyable, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: Castle 1, Castle 3, Castle 4, Castle 5, Castle 6
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? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
799 | 799 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 17 | 9 | 15 | 5 | 33 | The winning strategy in round 2 was primarily to take castles 4, 5, 9, and 10. I'm largely trying to disrupt that by using more force at 10 and 4. At the same time I'm trying to take 4, 6, 8, and 10 to get myself to 28. |
1086 | 1086 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 32 | 26 | Loading up on the high value castles is in some ways the most obvious strategy. However, it is possible that folks will overthink, in which case this might do well. |
1087 | 1087 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 25 | 0 | 50 | Arbitrary |
1171 | 1171 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 19 | 2 | 24 | 32 | To avoid overvaluing castles 4 and 5, I chose a strategy that cedes 4, 5, and the hotly contested 8. 28 points are needed to win, and if I win every castle I am invested in I will come ahead with 38. This allows me to lose even my most valuable castle and still win. |
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 |
185 | 185 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 12 | 1 | 24 | 4 | 26 | 2 | 22 | Pretty random, some psychology |
482 | 482 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 15 | 18 | 22 | 24 | Looks good to me! |
501 | 501 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 3 | 22 | 27 | 22 | This combination had a good performance in tests against the data from past competitions |
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. |
253 | 253 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 22 | 23 | 4 | 27 | 4 | Well, I didn't use *actual* game theory, that's for sure! |
940 | 940 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 2 | 6 | 12 | 31 | 1 | 28 | |
1224 | 1224 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 10 | 2 | 24 | 20 | 2 | 3 | 30 | I think most people will cycle back to strategy 1 but I think one could use that to take many 10's back. Otherwise, concentrating on the middle again - but not contesting the highest contested castles. |
21 | 21 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 30 | 10 | Just guessing based on the previous two events. 678 heavy vs 459,10 heavy, sort of a mix. |
120 | 120 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 16 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 16 | you need 28 points to win. I maximize my chances of winning 10 points 100% of the time in castles 1-4, concede castle 5, then hope even distribution wins me 3 of 5 in castles 6-10 versus a field that allocates 30 plus to a single castle. |
269 | 269 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 20 | 21 | 21 | 3 | |
280 | 280 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 26 | 4 | 26 | 27 | 4 | Winning 6, 8 and 9 will all but assure me victory. If I lose one of them, I hope I have enough at castle 7 or 10 to pick up one of those instead |
363 | 363 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 3 | 22 | 31 | 4 | 4 | 8 | I found that having more troops at castles 1, 4, 6, 7, and 10 would be enough to win, so I focused on those. Also, those castles were not as heavily contested last time. I did just enough in those castles to win most games last time then allocated the rest of the troops to the other castles. |
595 | 595 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 20 | 12 | 45 | Made a non linear shot for two big numbers and hope to get a couple of lower castles. |
608 | 608 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | |
612 | 612 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 14 | 21 | 5 | 17 | 23 | There are 7 strategies I'm trying to beat, 4 historical and 3 forecasts. The 4 historical strategies are the February Average, the May rematch Average, and the two champions Vince Vatter and Cyrus Hettle. The 3 forecasts are what I call the "Forecast Average," and Copycat 1 and Copycat 2. The Forecast Average is what I expect the average castle distribution to be based on the last two battles: 3,4,8,9,11,11,14,15,12,13. The Copycats are players who are trying to synthesize the strategies of the last two winners. Copycat 1 focuses troops on castles 5, 8 and 9 (distribution: 1,3,5,8,12,2,3,31,33,2). Copycat 2 focuses troops on castles 4, 6, 7, and 10 (distribution: 2,2,6,12,2,17,22,2,3,32). My distribution scores very well against the 3 historical averages, which I hope will represent the majority of players and get my win rate above 50%. And hopefully it narrowly defeats most of the elite players who are trying to copy previous champions, putting me in the upper echelon. |
741 | 741 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 24 | 35 | 8 | 7 | Last time but winning those. |
778 | 778 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 22 | 22 | 15 | 21 | |
888 | 888 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 16 | 23 | 7 | 17 | 19 | I'm counting on an overreaction to the distribution in 9 and 10 while focusing on the undervalued 7. It seems warlords are maximising the extremes though, so a token force to the lows should capture some value. |
943 | 943 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 25 | Looked at previous good ones, made some guesses on how people would respond this time around |
984 | 984 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 17 | This strategy is to spread a wide net. Which clearly hasn't worked so far. But lets try it |
1018 | 1018 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 26 | 26 | 27 | Trying to maximize value at the bottom side poaching empty castles while still having a shot against most who split their forces to 25 or less. |
1304 | 1304 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 26 | 26 | 27 | The top 3 castles are worth the same as the other 7, so I focused troops there and equally disbursed troops in the other 7 castles to pick up any that they didn't attack with much force. |
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. |
158 | 158 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 11 | 4 | 4 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 4 | The past winners placed 2-3 troops at each of their worst bases, by placing 4 I could acquire those bases at a lower marginal cost of entry. I wanted to try and take 5 bases total, and wanted to make sure that each of those 5 bases had more than 10 so that I could beat out the average person who just runs 10's across the board. I avoided the 10 spot because I think the average person will overplace value on that and overallocate their troops there. |
170 | 170 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 13 | 20 | 37 | Roughly exponential increase for each next castle |
609 | 609 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 34 | 34 | Slanging it |
1198 | 1198 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 14 | 12 | 19 | 24 | 16 | You have to win the high value castles to win it all, but should still defend the low level ones as well. |
1311 | 1311 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 24 | 5 | 34 | 8 | 8 | I spent way too long on this and I still hate my answer. |
45 | 45 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 32 | 5 | 34 | The most prominent strategies that have been winning have been strategies that have had the "four castle" strategy which would win the slight majority of the points (28). Assuming this is the strategy most people seek to optimize on I wanted to build a strategy that would beat these strategies. Every four base must win either castle 10 or castle 8 to reach this 28 point threshold (which is the primary way they win). After that the number of troops sent to the other castles should be greater than with a four castle strategy that you win the rest of the needed points on the castles that others gave over for free. I would like to test it with 30 in bases 8,10 and 5 troops in 1 and 3 as well but I think you need to make sure you juice your troop count in the bases you are going for because if you don't win at least one of those you are going to be in trouble. You will also lose to a split evenly strategy but I don't think that will be popular as most people will look at the data and realize you probably want to have a win condition. |
676 | 676 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 30 | 30 | I distributed them based on how important the castle was. |
701 | 701 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 15 | 15 | 25 | 25 | 1 | I’m feeling lucky. |
797 | 797 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 18 | 22 | 18 | 15 | I tried to ride the wave from earlier deployments and emphasize the trough in the middle. |
1110 | 1110 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 13 | 17 | 19 | 23 | 8 | |
1119 | 1119 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 29 | 8 | 26 | 10 | Tried to do a combination of attributing points based on "value" (100 soldier -> 55 points = 1.81 soldier per point) and blocking people going for winning coalitions. So heavily focusing on a few castles to win the game. |
1136 | 1136 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 18 | 20 | 19 | 21 | 3 | I wanted to avoid any single troops beating me. My goal is to win 6, 7,8, 9 and from there win 2 castles from my opponent undercommitting. |
1303 | 1303 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 3 | Created two sets of the 1000 top results out of 1000 random arrays compared against themselves. Then compared the top performing array sets. The above was the best performing solution. Performed with SAS, using SQL and the datastep. Run time was about 20m. |
3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 22 | 6 | 22 | 22 | 8 | Based on previous results, I focussed on castles 6, 8 and 9 and left myself a healthy backup in each of the others |
166 | 166 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 25 | 25 | 27 | 1 | 1 | |
169 | 169 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 15 | 10 | 26 | 34 | 0 | Clustered to win as many points against last time's winners. |
257 | 257 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 32 | 31 | 5 | 6 | Focused on 2 in the middle, never lower than 2 to beat the 1s deployed and heavier on two important |
366 | 366 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 34 | 4 | 34 | |
593 | 593 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 13 | 6 | 18 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 17 | I generated some random troop deployments, had them all battle each other, and this was the best one. |
682 | 682 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 6 | 18 | 8 | 18 | 6 | 27 | Base: Assign soldier number equal to castle number using 55. Do it again using castle #-1 using the other 45. Adjust: disfavor odd # castles trying for wins in #4, 6, 8, and 10. |
1219 | 1219 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 20 | 20 | diversified deployment with more troops sent to higher castles, placing slightly higher relative value on even numbered castles. |
24 | 24 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 26 | 33 | 6 | 5 | It just felt *right* |
79 | 79 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 15 | 25 | 27 | 1 | I've never actually participated in something like this before. I assumed most people would attempt to capture the castle worth the most points (10). I felt if I essentially sacrificed that castle and then stuck to a rather linear distribution of soldiers increasing from 1-9 I stood a greater chance of capturing those castles and thus winning the Game. I guess we'll see. |
135 | 135 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 16 | 18 | 18 | 19 | Idk let's see if I win |
628 | 628 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 25 | Trying to adhere to the 2 troops for 1 vp but with some skew to capture 10 based on last time around. |
655 | 655 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 15 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | Tried to win castle 6, plus 2 of 7, 8, 9, 10 assuming that most contestants will go for 2 of 7, 8, 9, 10. Then scatter enough on 1-5 to pick up some points there. |
724 | 724 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 15 | 30 | 20 | My goal was to fight for every castle. A sizable investment in castle “9” and “10” was meant to punish any player who got too cheeky while also remaining competitive in the middle values. No castles for free to the opponent. |
40 | 40 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 18 | 20 | 12 | 18 | I am uncertain as to how people will adjust to two contests worth of results, so I've taken a slightly more balanced approach that targets higher value castles more proportionately to their values, while still leaving enough troops to pick up the low and mid value castles that others may defend lightly. |
846 | 846 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 15 | 19 | 20 | I started from simulating a tournament of 500 random players, that is, each players distribution of soldiers over their castles was uniformly sampled from all possible soldier configurations (at least I hope it was uniformly sampling from that). Then the top 5 players were taken and put aside. I then repeated this random tournament 99 more times to obtain 500 top 5 players. These players then competed in another tournament and I took out the top 5 players (top of the top players as I call them). Then I repeated this whole thing 99 more times to get 500 top of the top players. From these 500 top of the top players, I calculated the median placements for each battlefield. Then I repeated the above until I had a 10 medians for each battlefield. I took the mean of each battlefields medians and used the 10 means to calculate my strategy. I begin by allocating 1 soldier to each battlefield and set this as my starting configuration. Then I calculated the points per median soldier allocation for each battlefield. This would give me a way to rank which battlefields should be allocated to first. Going according to the highest points per median soldier allocation battlefield, I added to the battlefield the floor of the respective battlefields mean of medians. I went down the rankings until I ran out of soldiers or finished allocating to the last battlefield. If there were any remaining soldiers, I allocated one by one to the battlefield that had the highest points per soldier if adding one more soldier meant I won that battlefield. |
874 | 874 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 24 | 26 | 0 | hit the higher valued castles harder, except for 10, which I believe my opponent will overvalue. |
1174 | 1174 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 18 | 12 | Put a premium on the higher point castles except for the highest one. |
1175 | 1175 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 7 | It's still important to win the big-point castles; if you can win 3 of 7,8,9,10 you only need one of the smaller castles. I suspect there will be correction away from the 10-point castle, but not so big that you can slip in with a 3-man force. |
32 | 32 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | Linear |
86 | 86 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | Trying to be competitive at every single castle, without wasting too many soldiers. |
136 | 136 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | Need 28 pts to win, expected value of n pts/ 55 total its per castle. Rounded up higher pt castles. |
229 | 229 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | I reinforced the higher value castles with 1 army from each less-valued castle in the hopes that I could both win some high-value battles against warlords trying to win a greater number of low-value castles and some (more?) low-value battles against top-heavy warlords. |
316 | 316 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 13 | 16 | 18 | 15 | 13 | I took last round's averages and shaved the lower half to give more juice to the top castles. |
401 | 401 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | I figure everyone else is goint to overthink it, so I just went with a basic strategy. Since every castly is worth progressively more, I decided to put progressively more troops in each castle |
481 | 481 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 20 | Roughly their percentage value of 55 total available points. |
572 | 572 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 12 | 14 | 17 | 20 | Using a base-10 logarithmic scale to determine base troop deployment for each castle (base troop deployment = log(castle#) * 10). Deduct each base number of troops deployed at each castle from 10, and send those troops to each castle in reverse order. E.g. spare troops from #1 go to #10, spares from #2 to #9, and so on until spares from #10 go to #1. I end up not sending any to #1 because log(1) = 0 and log(10) = 1. |
581 | 581 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | I just distributed troops proportionally to the value of the castle. I very strongly doubt that this will be successful. |
643 | 643 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 23 | Trying to maintain approximately the same troop-to-score ratio for each castle (1.8 soldiers per point, rounded down), then threw my 5 left over soldiers into castle 10 to try and win the highest scoring castle. |
688 | 688 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | If F is a fraction of the troops, 1F+2F+...+9F+10F should equal 100. F is 100/55, or 1.81818...As there are no fractional people, I wanted to allocate the closest whole-number equivalents to 1F, 2F, etc. to the various castles, to minimize my ‘shortfall fraction’. So because some castles have an extra fractional person, the castles I chose to have a ‘shortfall’ were 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6. |
699 | 699 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 2V-1. Assets (troops) distributed in proportion to cattle point values. |
716 | 716 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | I split all my troops up equally based on each castles point value. Since there were a total of 55 points between all ten castles and I was given 100 troops there was no way to split up 100/55 straight up. Instead, I went with the equation 2(points)-1= soldiers. This leads to having exactly 100 troops distributed among the ten castles while assigning troops equally among each point value. |
749 | 749 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 14 | 21 | 17 | 12 | 12 | Focus on the valuable middle to high castles |
764 | 764 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 19 | 19 | 19 | Fibbinochi sequence |
869 | 869 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | Gave more to more valuable castles without writing any off |
901 | 901 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | Assigned soldiers proportional to castle value |
907 | 907 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | Gave more to more valuable castles without writing any off |
1023 | 1023 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | Troops proportional to point value |
1101 | 1101 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | the total points are 55. I would like to secure with the highest probability 27.5 points or above. If I had 110 soldiers I would assign each soldier to every 0.5 points. Since I have 100 soldiers I believe that is the best strategy to secure at least 27.5 from most people, regardless if they have chosen to concentrate their forces in the 3 more valuable castles or any other combination. |
1125 | 1125 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 15 | 18 | 20 | Most solders I can spend at each castle, without paying more than 1.81 soldiers/point. Maximizing my chance of winning each, without overpaying. The most efficient overpays are an extra soldier at 8, and 2 extra soldiers at 9 and 10 each. |
1127 | 1127 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | Each castle gets 2x-1 of its value. No particular reason; simply a fun pattern. |
1232 | 1232 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | Each castle has just under twice their point value in troops. |
266 | 266 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 12 | 0 | 19 | 23 | 20 | Slight tweak on EV 1, 3, 5 etc. deployment |
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. |
444 | 444 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 10 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 32 | I assumed everyone would group-think back to the round before the last one (focusing on 7 and 8). Given that, I mostly copied the strategies of the last round , assuming that everyone else is "too smart" to try it. |
476 | 476 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 15 | 15 | I split the difference between the average soldiers per castle from the previous iteration vs. roughly proportional #s of soldiers per castle value. |
557 | 557 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 13 | 14 | 19 | 15 | 14 | Average of prior deployment data with small adjustments. |
607 | 607 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 10 | 6 | Castle 1 is basically worthless, and as for the rest I just have to beat the most people, not the best people. So I'm assuming most people who do this didn't read and react the previous results and will therefore lose to a similar strategy as before just with minor tweaks. |
753 | 753 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 18 | 24 | 1 | 31 | 1 | I wanted to obviously weigh the greater castles with more troops. I didn’t want to dump a lot of resources into 10 because people would target it. I also chose 9 instead of 8 due to previous results (in case that influenced other people’s picks) |
827 | 827 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 21 | 18 | 4 | I figured I'd look at what strategy riddlers used last time. I looked at both the mean and the median. I started with the median set and increased most of the numbers 1. I also compared this number set to the mean. It won 35 of the 55 points. So, why not go with that? |
918 | 918 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 18 | 20 | 6 | 15 | Adds to 100 |
935 | 935 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 12 | 16 | 20 | 24 | 2 | |
1180 | 1180 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 16 | 25 | 21 | 20 | 0 | I just picked ones I thought would win |
1314 | 1314 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 20 | 30 | 5 | 5 | Eh? |
223 | 223 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 11 | random assignment |
387 | 387 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 11 | 16 | 21 | 26 | 3 | You’ll never know |
715 | 715 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 15 | 16 | 18 | Allocated the same proportion of troops equal to the proportion of total points the castle represents. |
847 | 847 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 11 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 21 | 1 | Sacrifice the king, win the rest, and maybe sneak the 10 if someone sacrifices harder. |
1038 | 1038 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 11 | 3 | 15 | 18 | 27 | 9 |
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 );