In all honesty, even as an avid “video gamer” as we like to term ourselves, I found

game theory quite technical and difficult to understand. The first reading on the Stackelberg

Security Games did give a broad and sweeping view on how game theory is currently being

widely applied in real-world scenarios, but the second reading left me with more confusion

than understanding. The little understanding I did find came not from my experience with

colourful pixels on a QHD screen, but from my varied and tumultuous adventures with the

wargaming community—the concepts described in the Stanford article bore at the very least

superficial similarities to the strategies and scenarios presented on the tabletop—games often

hinge on our predictions of how our opponents would react or respond to our moves and

countermoves, as well as on the uncertainty and risk of even single dice rolls. Some players

opt for what we call “alpha strikes”, all or nothing gambles whose success or failure is

determined by the execution of the strike and the response of the opponent—the outcomes of

games with such players are often decided within a single round—essentially a one-shot

game. The concept of commitment exists here also, whereby ignoring all other possibilities

for strategy, the alpha strike player tunnels their opponent either into retreating away from the

strike and sacrificing their objectives or into ruining their chances of survival by weathering

the alpha strike. However, as mentioned above, the Stanford article still confused me greatly

with all its technicalities and with the many formulas and graphs shown, so I look forward to

the lecture where I hope at least some confusion will be alleviated.