here) though not ultimately averted.

What is interesting, however, is this. If we form a network and immunise it by running the delegation strategy, then run a clique defence as well from the initiation of hostilities, this compound strategy works rather better than ordinary cliques. Figure \[fig:BA06\] shows the simulation results.

\[htbp\] ![Component size: clique, immunization by delegation, and combined clique and delegation defenses against centrality attack[]{data-label="fig:BA06"}](centrality-clique-delegation.eps "fig:")

Figure \[fig:BA07\] may give some insight into the mechanisms. Delegation results in shorter path lengths under attack: it postpones and slows down the growth of path length that otherwise results from hub elimination. As a result, equilibrium is achieved later, and with a larger minimum connected component.

\[htbp\] ![Clique, immunization by delegation, and combined clique and delegation defenses against centrality attack []{data-label="fig:BA07"}](centrality-clique-delegation-geodesic.eps "fig:")

Conclusions and Future Work
===========================

In this paper, we have built a bridge between network science and evolutionary game theory.

For some years, people have discussed what sort of communications topologies might be ideal for covert communication in the presence of powerful adversaries, and whether network science might be of practical use in covert conflicts – whether to insurgents or to counterinsurgency forces [@BCZ04; @Sparrow90]. Our work makes a 