  We consider two-player iterated survival games in which players may switch
from a more cooperative behavior to a less cooperative one at some step of the
game. Payoffs are survival probabilities and lone individuals have to finish
the game on their own. We explore the potential of these games to support
cooperation, focusing on the case in which each single step is a Prisoner's
Dilemma. We find that incentives for or against cooperation depend on the
number of defections at the end of the game, as opposed to the number of steps
in the game. Broadly, cooperation is supported when the survival prospects of
lone individuals are relatively bleak. Specifically, we find three critical
values or cutoffs for the loner survival probability which, in concert with
other survival parameters, determine the incentives for or against cooperation.
One cutoff determines the existence of an optimal number of defections against
a fully cooperative partner, one determines whether additional defections
eventually become disfavored as the number of defections by the partner
increases, and one determines whether additional cooperations eventually become
favored as the number of defections by the partner increases. We obtain
expressions for these switch-points and for optimal numbers of defections
against partners with various strategies. These typically involve small numbers
of defections even in very long games. We show that potentially long stretches
of equilibria may exist, in which there is no incentive to defect more or
cooperate more. We describe how individuals find equilibria in best-response
walks among strategies, and establish that evolutionary stability requires
there be just one such equilibrium. Otherwise, equilibria are not protected
against invasion by strategies with fewer defections.
