  Optimal behavior in (competitive) situation is traditionally determined with
the help of utility functions that measure the payoff of different actions.
Given an ordering on the space of revenues (payoffs), the classical axiomatic
approach of von Neumann and Morgenstern establishes the existence of suitable
utility functions, and yields to game-theory as the most prominent
materialization of a theory to determine optimal behavior. Although this
appears to be a most natural approach to risk management too, applications in
critical infrastructures often violate the implicit assumption of actions
leading to deterministic consequences. In that sense, the gameplay in a
critical infrastructure risk control competition is intrinsically random in the
sense of actions having uncertain consequences. Mathematically, this takes us
to utility functions that are probability-distribution-valued, in which case we
loose the canonic (in fact every possible) ordering on the space of payoffs,
and the original techniques of von Neumann and Morgenstern no longer apply.
  This work introduces a new kind of game in which uncertainty applies to the
payoff functions rather than the player's actions (a setting that has been
widely studied in the literature, yielding to celebrated notions like the
trembling hands equilibrium or the purification theorem). In detail, we show
how to fix the non-existence of a (canonic) ordering on the space of
probability distributions by only mildly restricting the full set to a subset
that can be totally ordered. Our vehicle to define the ordering and establish
basic game-theory is non-standard analysis and hyperreal numbers.
