# Age of LLM: A Strategic 1v1 Benchmark for Reasoning, Diplomacy and Reliability of Large Language Models under Fog of War

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.24391 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.24391/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 8 of its 12 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [Holistic Evaluation of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09110/) (2022)
- [GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Limitations of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12348/) (2024)
- [GameBench: Evaluating Strategic Reasoning Abilities of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06613/) (2024)
- [If LLMs Have Human-Like Attributes, Then So Does Age of Empires II](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.31514/) (2026)
- [To Nuke or Not to Nuke: LLMs' (Missing) Ethical Reasoning and Actions in a High-Stakes Decision-Making Simulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08310/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce Age of LLM, a turn-based 1v1 benchmark in which two LLMs face off on a 13x7 grid to destroy the enemy base. Three stressors are deliberate: fog of war, full diplomacy (messages, ceasefires, ultimatums; uranium kept secret), and a reliability dimension where every turn must follow a strict JSON schema and an illegal action is silently discarded. The engine is private and each match uses a fresh random map seed and opponent, mitigating the data contamination that affects public benchmarks. Models receive a (near) rule-only prompt with no build-order advice (two tactical seed phrases were present during data collection; see Section 2.7). We benchmark 15 reasoning models across 54 matches and 5,258 actions. Findings: (1) the nuclear rush dominates (78% on the rules-coherent v0.11+ sub-corpus; 85% corpus-wide) with a sole-launcher signature that is largely mechanical under secret-simultaneous launch rules, not a cognitive deterrence failure; (2) military conquest is rare but faster (12.3 vs 18.9 turns); (3) diplomacy is prolific yet almost never consummated; (4) ~58% of illegal actions are fog/state errors, making the illegal-action rate a measure of belief-tracking; (5) -- the least established, and the only one we label exploratory -- a weak link associates reliability with winning. The corpus is small, unbalanced and not side-swapped, so the ranking is a preliminary descriptive view, not a contribution. Beyond ranking, the turn-by-turn traces of actions and messages make the corpus a lens on how LLMs reason under adversarial uncertainty -- their belief-tracking, spontaneous deception, and per-model cognitive "personas" -- which we frame as a future research direction. We release the replay format, an isometric viewer and all replays; engine source on request.