👾 The Reality of sUAS in the IADS: The Game Battlespace

Following up on my last post about Ukraine’s success in Operation Spiderweb, I wanted to highlight a recent video by Alex Hollings that really syncs with what IADS: The Game tries to capture.

Whenever I demo the game for someone without a military background, they’re often surprised to see missile shots don’t have guaranteed outcomes. In contrast to the clean logic of games like Magic: The Gathering — where 3 Power beats 2 Toughness, and that’s that — IADS captures the messier reality of war. A dice roll captures not just a weapon’s specs, but the broader uncertainty of combat.

📊 It’s Not Just the Stat Sheet

On-paper effectiveness is only part of the story. But consider how battlefield reality is shaped by factors like:

• 🛠️ Manufacturing quality control

• 📡 Data integrity across the Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Assess (F2T2EA) Kill Chain

• 🎯 Variance in operator skill and decision-making

Once you account for all that, even the most detailed stat sheet starts to drift from reality. IADS leans into that complexity — combat outcomes can be unpredictable, foggy, and often frustratingly imperfect.

📉 “FPV Drones Kind of Suck”

Alex opens his video by citing a War on the Rocks article from Jakub Jajcay, a former FPV drone operator in Ukraine. Jajcay's blunt summary?

“I found that 43% of our sorties resulted in a hit on the intended target.”

Including the missions that were aborted due to technical issues or poor conditions, that success rate drops to 20–30%. Brutal — but well within the range of what I might expect.

Rather than a miracle weapon, FPV drones are one tool in a broader toolkit. As Alex explains, they’re often used in double taps — following up a strike to confirm a kill or finish off a damaged target. A great example of slotting a capability where it works best, not overhyping it.

🎯 Just Upgrade it!! Wait...

So what if you wanted your FPV drone program to be more reliable? You’d need serious investment — more money, better materials, tighter quality control. Alex estimates the cost to field a consistently reliable FPV capability… and it’s too much.

That’s the tradeoff — and IADS: The Game makes you live with it. In our system, Upgrade Cards boost Range, Defense, and Attack Dice — but at a cost:

• You forfeit the chance to draft a different unit card.

• You increase the unit’s Attrition Point value.

Stacking two or three upgrades can make a devastating weapon system — but it’s not without risk. I’ve watched a double-upgraded Long-Range SAM get shredded by High-Speed Bombers… losing the attrition trade five to two!

🛠️ New House Rules for sUAS Fans

Watching Alex’s video made me realize: we never included an Upgrade mechanic for sUAS Swarm or Counter sUAS. So here are a couple of optional house rules for players who want to explore a more advanced drone battlefield:

• sUAS Swarm

  • May be used an additional time for each Upgrade.

  • Each use applies an additional -1 Defense to all enemy Surface Units.

  • Players gain another opportunity to Detect a suspected enemy Surface Unit — a great combo with long range fires!

• Counter sUAS

  • May be used an additional time for each Upgrade.

  • Each activation applies +1 Defense to all friendly Surface Units.

  • If the enemy fields multiple sUAS Swarm unit cards (or upgrades the sUAS Swarm), you’ve got answers.

🧠 Final Thoughts

Combat isn’t clean. Stats are a starting point — but context, timing, and investment shape every engagement. In IADS: The Game, the Draft Phase mirrors real-world opportunity cost. Investing in advanced capabilities might give you certainty — but it also means saying no to something else.

On the battlefield and on the table-top: every choice has a cost.

– Ric