Interstellar Operations Open Beta Test: Force Operations: Discussion

[Shin Ji]

I was going through the PDF again, and I found more things that confused me.

On the Missions Table, three things have asterisks next to them.  Why?  I can't find any reference to it in the text or the table.

Why does your Command modifer go down as the Reputation increases?

Are some missions, like Recon, always Covert?   Are some always High Risk?

I think that covers it for now.  Thanks!

[Sandslice]

I was going through the PDF again, and I found more things that confused me.

On the Missions Table, three things have asterisks next to them.  Why?  I can't find any reference to it in the text or the table.

Why does your Command modifer go down as the Reputation increases?

Are some missions, like Recon, always Covert?   Are some always High Risk?

I think that covers it for now.  Thanks!

The asterisks refer to this omitted footnote:
*Offered with Planetary Assault contract, to begin immediately at termination of first contract.

In other words, if you get Guerrilla*, Recon*, or Diversionary*, you will create the first contract as usual, and then create a Planetary Assault contract with no transport terms or time modifier because it's in the same system, hopefully with you following up on your previous successes!

I suspect a typo, though it's possible that House negotiators might want a merc force's sterling reputation to rub off on the regular troops... :P

A mission is covert if it's rolled on the Covert column.  Terrorism, assassination, sabotage, espionage, observation, and mole-hunting are always covert.

Recon raid, guerrilla, diversionary, and security can be rolled on other columns, so they're not always covert.

[cray]

Got a problem here, in Force Creation Arnold's Force is Government, but in the text here it seems to be mercenary, which is correct?

That has been addressed earlier in the force creation thread.

[Shin Ji]

A mission is covert if it's rolled on the Covert column.  Terrorism, assassination, sabotage, espionage, observation, and mole-hunting are always covert.

Recon raid, guerrilla, diversionary, and security can be rolled on other columns, so they're not always covert.

Thanks Sandslice!  So, we would only apply the Covert modifiers to RR, Guerrilla, Diversionary, and Security missions that happened to be Covert.  Something like Terrorism would not receive those modifiers, right?

Speaking of which, what is Terrorism in this context?  What does it entail?  Wholesale slaughter of civilians?  I was trying to think how a Terrorism mission could be distinct from the other categories, and I was coming up empty.

[Sandslice]

Thanks Sandslice!  So, we would only apply the Covert modifiers to RR, Guerrilla, Diversionary, and Security missions that happened to be Covert.  Something like Terrorism would not receive those modifiers, right?

Speaking of which, what is Terrorism in this context?  What does it entail?  Wholesale slaughter of civilians?  I was trying to think how a Terrorism mission could be distinct from the other categories, and I was coming up empty.

Nah, the always-covert missions would still get the covert modifier (including the reduced Reputation effects.)

Terrorism is using a pinch of guerrilla tactics, a dash of sabotage and assassination, and random acts of thuggery to erode a population's faith in the local government, until they either rise up or send out a plea for help.

Basically, it is to guerrilla what espionage is to recon raid.  Sneakier and more subtle, but basically similar ends.

[Sandslice]

So, going to try to run a force with neither DS nor JS, and then with either, and finally with both, to see how things change.

The force: a simple 12-'Mech introtech company, recalling the very old, dripping-with-unseen sourcebooks.
Peacetime op cost: 134330 cb/mo.  SRMs are assumed standard; infernos are less expensive, and more expensive ammo isn't available in 3015-ish.  (Yes, starships have a massive effect.)

Reputation: 26 (2).  This is pretty much all on the Commander Skills (L6, S6, T6, N8, non-AToW method; lucky rolls with a Veteran commander.)  +10 for Regular average skill, -10 for no DS.
Question 1: If you have no DropShips, do you apply the -10 and the -3 for not having transport for support personnel, or only the -10?  It doesn't matter in my example, but could.

------

Determining number of contracts.
Question 2: Just in case someone doesn't have AToW, what is the TN for unopposed Negotiate* checks?  (Luckily I have a copy of AToW: it's TN 8.)
*Using Negotiate instead of Protocol per discussion on page 2 of this thread.

Hiring Hall: Solaris VII (minor)
Roll: 7; +2 for rep mod, +1 for hall: 10, for 4 offers!

But now there's a bunch of questions on the employer roll step.

3.  The description calls for a Negotiate* check, modified for hiring hall and reputation modifier.  Does failure, in this case, simply mean a negative MOS and the first line on the table?

4.  The table calls for a modified 2d6 roll, not an MOS.  The table's distributions, moreover, suggest regular 2d6 rolls.  Is a Negotiate roll and MOS intended, or would we be better served with a regular 2d6 roll?

5.  Also, with a Negotiate roll, a force with enough Negotiate modifiers ends up spamming Corporate contracts.  It's not hard to reach, either: you need to roll a 19 or higher.
N = Negotiate modifier = Negotiate skill + Hiring hall + Force reputation mod.
2d6+N-8 = actual result on the chart.

At N=7, you can start getting Corporate contracts.
N=12, you can no longer get Independents.  Corporate is now on 7.
N=13, Marik is pushed off the table.  Corporate is now on 6.
N=14, Liao is off.
N=15, Kurita is off.
N=17, you can only get Corporate.

Note that these numbers aren't hard to reach: if I had starships, I'd have +13 (or +15 on Galatea) instead of +10.

Also, because mission types are rolled on 2d6+(2d6+N-8 ), these can push you into spamming garrisons and cadres (or coverts, if you're into that.)  At N=16, even in the slim chance that you get a Steiner contract, it will always be 12/12, cadre/garrison, unless you go for covert.  As for covert, you can guarantee it for Corporate contracts at only N=15, since 3 is covert for corporate; N=16 guarantees it for a House, because 3 is special for Houses.

[Sandslice]

Editing quick.  This becomes a bit saner, though not by much.

So, going to roll these four contracts.  It says to do the following:
1.  For employer, make a modified Negotiate check.
2.  For mission, first make a modified Negotiate check without rep modifier; then...
3.  Add (or optionally subtract) this with a 2d6 roll against the table.

Since my modified Negotiate is 8, the MOS is a straight 2d6 roll.
The result of this roll is added to 2d6, which means I'm rolling 4d6 (mean: 14) on a 2d6-calibrated table.

Offer 1:
Employer: 7+2=9: Davion.
Mission: MOS 9, 7+9, 5+9: Special Cadre/Garrison.
Question: As with employer, does this MOS modifier apply to the special/covert follow-up roll?

Offer 2:
Employer: 6+2=8: Kurita.
Mission: MOS 3, 6+3=9: Recon Raid

Offer 3:
Employer: 5+2=7: Liao.
Mission: MOS 10, flipping: automatic Covert Security.

Offer 4:
Employer: 4+2=6: Marik.
Mission: MOS 7, 6+7, 3+7: Special Diversionary Raid* with Planetary Assault follow-up.

Question: How do you generate contract terms for the slash contracts, ie cadre/garrison and riot/garrison?

Observation: I have an unusually strong Negotiate skill on my force commander, which is making it very easy to hit Special or Covert missions.  Perhaps too easy, unless I roll rather poorly on the MOS roll.

[Sandslice]

Ok.  Going to soldier on without the Davion contract.
Kurita recon raid.  Target world is Nusakan.
Base value: 2660028.65 (51185623 x .05 + 134330 x .75)
Base time: 3 months
Transport time: 5 jumps: 7.5 weeks = 2 months.
Tempo: 1.6, Employer: 1.3.
Rep: 26/5+.5, so 5 line, for 2.0.
Mission pay multiplier: 3 x 2 x 1.6 x 1.3 = x12.48

Term rolls: Controlling Super Power on Recon Raid, rep 5.  Any term-haggling would be done on a pure 2d6 vs. 2d6 roll, since both my commander and the negotiator are at 8 Negotiate.
Question: For those who don't have AToW, what is the Negotiate skill of a "soldier-level negotiator?"  (It's 8, 6 Int and level 2 skill.)
Command: -3 mod: 12(!)-3=9, Liaison.  Not risking.
Salvage: -3 mod: 11=3=8, 50% shared.
Support: +2 mod: 5+2=7, 100% straight support.
Transport: +1 mod: 8+1=9, 60% covered.  Pushing this.
Me: 8  Kurita: 5.  Full transport coverage.  That simplifies things.

Contract value: 2660028.65 x 12.48 +
2660028.65 x 5.2 +
134330 x 3 =
47432296.532 rounds normally to 47 432 297 cb, plus fully compensated transport (which is a zero sum.)

Definitely not terrible, for having no starships.

[Styker]

Should'nt transport costs and transport reimbursement be doubled?  In FMM:R, you would calculate cost and reimbursement based on a 1 way trip and then double it (to include the costs and reimbursement for the return trip).  You may not actually return to where you left from, but should'nt these values assume that you do?

[Sandslice]

Should'nt transport costs and transport reimbursement be doubled?  In FMM:R, you would calculate cost and reimbursement based on a 1 way trip and then double it (to include the costs and reimbursement for the return trip).  You may not actually return to where you left from, but should'nt these values assume that you do?

The Wombats example does appear to, at least for reimbursement.

-------------------

Other questions, and my compiled list of my questions thus far.

1.  If you don't have DropShips at all, do you apply the -3 for not having transport for your support personnel?
2.  What is the TN of an unopposed Negotiate check?  Not everyone has AToW.
3.  What is the Negotiate skill of a Soldier-level negotiator?  Not everyone has AToW.
(For the record, I do: both are 8.)
4.  On the mission table, you are effectively rolling 4d6-8, plus your Negotiate skill and hall modifier, on a 2d6 table.  At Negotiate+hall of 6+, 12 becomes the majority result.  Is this intended?
5.  On the mission table, does the MOS roll apply to the special/covert roll?
6.  Defencive Campaign is not on the mission table.  What causes it to be a mission option?
7.  How do you roll riot/garrison and cadre/garrison mission terms?
8.  The Command modifiers for high rep are negative.  Is this intended?

9.  The modifier for 0 rep is -1.0 and that for 1 rep is -0.5.  These result in massively negative contract values.

Using a previous example, of a Stingy Noble Cadre:
T = Op Tempo: 0.8
H = Employer: 1-0.2 = 0.8
R = 0 rep unit: -1

The pay formula is:
Base pay x (T x H x R) x mission time
+ Base pay x (H x R) x transport time
+ Support + transport.

Leaving out the time aspects for the moment, your pay in this example will be -1.44 x your base pay... plus your support and transport.
Suggestion: Change the 0 rep value to 0.1, and the 1 rep value to 0.5.

[Styker]

Looking back at it, I see it in the Wombat's description.  But I think it should be clarified in the rules.


Also, in FMM:R, you were able to hire a freelance negotiator.  I would like to see this included so I don't have to send my commander on a several month journey just to get a new contract.  I could hire the negotiator to handle contract acquisition while my commander is off fighting.

[Styker]

Under the heading - Resolving contract breaches p.13, Reputation is being refered to as Dragoon's Rating.  Not a big issue, as most will know what you are talking about, but I thought for clarification purposes you might want to look at it.

[Shin Ji]

The Master Contract Terms table lists "Defensive Campaign" as an option, but I don't see it in the Missions Table.

Also, what percentage of missions should be "High Risk," assuming a random roll?  I was thinking maybe 1 in 6, with any IS/Clan engagements automatically qualifying.

[cray]

Reputation: 26 (2).  This is pretty much all on the Commander Skills (L6, S6, T6, N8, non-AToW method; lucky rolls with a Veteran commander.)  +10 for Regular average skill, -10 for no DS.
Question 1: If you have no DropShips, do you apply the -10 and the -3 for not having transport for support personnel, or only the -10?  It doesn't matter in my example, but could.

Just the -10. I'll clarify that.

Determining number of contracts.
Question 2: Just in case someone doesn't have AToW, what is the TN for unopposed Negotiate* checks?  (Luckily I have a copy of AToW: it's TN 8.)
*Using Negotiate instead of Protocol per discussion on page 2 of this thread.

Noted, I'll put in the base TN.

3.  The description calls for a Negotiate* check, modified for hiring hall and reputation modifier.  Does failure, in this case, simply mean a negative MOS and the first line on the table?

My intent was, "You don't get that contract."

4.  The table calls for a modified 2d6 roll, not an MOS.  The table's distributions, moreover, suggest regular 2d6 rolls.  Is a Negotiate roll and MOS intended, or would we be better served with a regular 2d6 roll?

Regular 2d6 roll.

5.  Also, with a Negotiate roll, a force with enough Negotiate modifiers ends up spamming Corporate contracts.  It's not hard to reach, either: you need to roll a 19 or higher.
N = Negotiate modifier = Negotiate skill + Hiring hall + Force reputation mod.
2d6+N-8 = actual result on the chart.

Hmm. How's this sound: Instead of taking the exact result of the roll, if the roll is successful, then the player may pick any mission equal to or less than the roll?

So, going to roll these four contracts.  It says to do the following:
1.  For employer, make a modified Negotiate check.
2.  For mission, first make a modified Negotiate check without rep modifier; then...
3.  Add (or optionally subtract) this with a 2d6 roll against the table.

Since my modified Negotiate is 8, the MOS is a straight 2d6 roll.
The result of this roll is added to 2d6, which means I'm rolling 4d6 (mean: 14) on a 2d6-calibrated table.

Nice catch. That does skew the results. Any suggestions for straightening it?

Question: How do you generate contract terms for the slash contracts, ie cadre/garrison and riot/garrison?

I suppose, "Pick the better paying one." I'll add that.

Question: For those who don't have AToW, what is the Negotiate skill of a "soldier-level negotiator?"  (It's 8, 6 Int and level 2 skill.)

I'll note that in the document.

8.  The Command modifiers for high rep are negative.  Is this intended?

Nope. I think your suggestion will work.

Should'nt transport costs and transport reimbursement be doubled?

The round-trip travel time is noted as being calculated. I'll clarify that in the rules.

Also, in FMM:R, you were able to hire a freelance negotiator.  I would like to see this included so I don't have to send my commander on a several month journey just to get a new contract.  I could hire the negotiator to handle contract acquisition while my commander is off fighting.

I'll clarify that the actual negotiation may be handled by HPG or hired puppet, using the commander's skills. I was trying to avoid the FMMR complications of extra NPCs at every step in the force operation process.

Under the heading - Resolving contract breaches p.13, Reputation is being refered to as Dragoon's Rating.  Not a big issue, as most will know what you are talking about, but I thought for clarification purposes you might want to look at it.

Yep. That's a holdover from copying-and-pasting.

The Master Contract Terms table lists "Defensive Campaign" as an option, but I don't see it in the Missions Table.

The Contract Terms table will be updated to eliminate "defensive campaign."

Also, what percentage of missions should be "High Risk," assuming a random roll?  I was thinking maybe 1 in 6, with any IS/Clan engagements automatically qualifying.

I'll put in a qualifier or footnote. Not all mission types are high risk - garrison and cadre shouldn't be.

[Sandslice]

Just the -10. I'll clarify that.

Noted, I'll put in the base TN.

Good deal!  :)

My intent was, "You don't get that contract."

Hmm. How's this sound: Instead of taking the exact result of the roll, if the roll is successful, then the player may pick any mission equal to or less than the roll?

The problem this would address is for employer, not mission.  So on a failure, you found a dud offer / dead-end lead; and on a success, you can pick any employer equal to or less than your MOS.

I like it, and I'm sure the roleplayers / anti-X-factionists will like it too.

Nice catch. That does skew the results. Any suggestions for straightening it?

Keep it simple: just make missions (step 3) a straight 2d6 roll with only the hall modifier.

"To determine the mission for each offer, roll 2d6, applying the modifier applicable to the Hiring Hall.  If the Hiring Hall modifier is positive, the players may choose to apply it as a negative modifier instead.  This improves the chance of finding covert assignments."

This results in 2d6, plus/minus up to 2: 0-10 at -2, 4-14 at +2.  If the Southern Cross Brigade's battlefield potential/experience (ie, reputation) doesn't matter to what mission is needed, nor should their faceman's spin-doctoring ability.  Davion needs a recon raid, and you can't talk his recruiter into giving you a cushy garrison because the AFFS doesn't need cushy garrisons this month.

[SCC]

Yes, definitely, I thought that lacking DS's means you only took a -5. And if you lack DS's you ignore all penalties for lacking JS's, right?

Now lacking sufficient admins has been struck, right?

Now the rules say to

To determine how many Contract Offers are available, make 1 Protocol Skill Check per month, and apply the modifiers applicable to the Protocol Skill, and also those applicable to both the Hiring Hall world you’re hiring from (if any) as well as the force’s reputation modifier. Then compare the Margin of Success (or Failure) to the Contract Modifiers Table below.

The skill used on the roll has changed, hasn't it? And how do I make that roll?

[Sandslice]

Yes, definitely, I thought that lacking DS's means you only took a -5. And if you lack DS's you ignore all penalties for lacking JS's, right?

Now lacking sufficient admins has been struck, right?

Now the rules say to The skill used on the roll has changed, hasn't it? And how do I make that roll?

It's -5 if you don't have enough Dropships for your equipment; -10 if you don't have any Dropships.  The -3 applies if you have any Dropships, but they're not enough for your personnel --- but not if you have none.  (Thus, -10 is the worst your transport modifier can be.)
Jumpships never had a penalty, only a bonus if you have one (and/or enough for all your Dropships.)

Admins have not been bagged yet, as far as I'm aware.

To roll the number of possible contract offers in Step 1:
-Make a Negotiate check against TN 8, modifying for hiring hall and force reputation modifier.
The only change that's been made is using Negotiate instead of Protocol.  Less concern about AToW subskills, and the non-AToW commander method doesn't generate a Protocol skill anyway.

To roll for employer in step 2:
-Make a Negotiate check against TN 8, modifying for hiring hall and force rep.  A failure indicates a dead-end lead; on a success, you may pick any result up to the MOS.

To roll for mission in step 3:*
-Roll 2d6, modifying for hiring hall only.  You may treat a positive hall modifier as negative in order to try for covert missions.
*My proposed change.  Default is make a Negotiate check against TN 8, modifying for hiring hall; then use its MOS as a modifier to another 2d6 roll.

To roll terms in step 4:
-Roll 2d6 for each term, modifying for mission, employer, and force rep.
-You may negotiate each term, by making a Negotiate check against TN 2d6+8 (that is, an Opposed Negotiate check against the recruiter, who has Negotiate 8.)  This modifies the term roll by half of the player's MOS or MOF, round toward zero.
A gamemaster may choose to change the recruiter's Negotiate value; 8 is default, representing a Soldier-level NPC in AToW.

[SCC]

So for a Negotiate check I subtract from 8 my captains Negotiate skill (5) and then roll against the resulting number? Which in this case would be 3.

[Sandslice]

So for a Negotiate check I subtract from 8 my captains Negotiate skill (5) and then roll against the resulting number? Which in this case would be 3.

The short form: it produces the same result for unopposed rolls.

More explanation:
The way you're doing it, subtracting your skill from the base TN, is the same process used to get Total Warfare piloting/gunnery values.

Using the A Time of War method, you would add your skill to your roll, and roll against the TN.

In your example, let's say you roll a 7:
TW method: 7 against (8-5) = +4 MOS.
AToW method: (7+5) against 8: +4 MOS.

As long as you remember to properly apply your modifiers, you're ok.  Say you're rolling step 1 in a Great Hall:

Pure TW: 7 against (8-5-3) = +7 MOS.  The +3 bonus becomes a -3 bonus; the target is easier to hit.
Pure AToW: (7+5+3) against 8: +7 MOS.
Mixed: (7+3) against (8-5): +7 MOS.

I'd still recommend using pure AToW method regardless.  It'll make things the easiest to remember.

[Styker]

I noticed in the determining reputation table that tech and admin. support are used to calculate your reputation but medical support has been dropped (it was included in FMM:R).  Is this an oversight or will medical support be dropped?

[Sandslice]

I noticed in the determining reputation table that tech and admin. support are used to calculate your reputation but medical support has been dropped (it was included in FMM:R).  Is this an oversight or will medical support be dropped?

The admin count includes a mandatory level of medical support (Create a Force p9.)  You can get better medics either as Advanced infantry, or by buying MASH vehicles; but there isn't a separate reputation line for medics.  From the tone in the CAF thread, I don't think there will be.  :)

[cray]

The admin count includes a mandatory level of medical support (Create a Force p9.)  You can get better medics either as Advanced infantry, or by buying MASH vehicles; but there isn't a separate reputation line for medics.  From the tone in the CAF thread, I don't think there will be.  :)

What he said. Given that BT had introduced better rules for MASH and medics since FMMR, I thought I'd point players to that rather than incorporating an arbitrary number of doctors as unseen, under-supported background NPCs.

[Sandslice]

I'll spare the maths, and instead ask a simple question.

If you have your own starships, which mission term do you use to compensate for their use: support or transport?

(If transport, do you use the peacetime operating cost as your guideline, or what it would cost another company to hire your ships?)

[StoneRhino]

Regarding "Slaughter". I realize that it suggests that the Ares convention views a single civilian death as being considered slaughter. Is there no difference between 1 death and 1,000? One could be a single stray shot, but the other could be an all out battle in the middle of a busy city with rounds landing everywhere.  Also, are there any rules for a missed shot's chances of hitting a building near a target, and if that shot kills someone?

If there is a difference between killing 1 and killing 1,000, how will it scale? Also, is there any guideline of how many people, on average, would be in a particular type of building and of a specific elevation? People will likely want a guideline, especially if they are trying to have a GMed game.

[Acolyte]

Regarding "Slaughter". I realize that it suggests that the Ares convention views a single civilian death as being considered slaughter. Is there no difference between 1 death and 1,000? One could be a single stray shot, but the other could be an all out battle in the middle of a busy city with rounds landing everywhere.  Also, are there any rules for a missed shot's chances of hitting a building near a target, and if that shot kills someone?

If there is a difference between killing 1 and killing 1,000, how will it scale? Also, is there any guideline of how many people, on average, would be in a particular type of building and of a specific elevation? People will likely want a guideline, especially if they are trying to have a GMed game.

There are rules for missed shots in TacOps, they are a little much for most games, though.
   - Shane

[kato]

One might to apply a certain quote from a Kurt Tucholsky play there that's often misattributed to Ioseph Jugasvili. Makes for a good guideline - the other way around.

The war? I can't find it too terrible! The death of one man: that is a catastrophe. One hundred thousand deaths: that is a statistic!

[cray]

If you have your own starships, which mission term do you use to compensate for their use: support or transport?

(If transport, do you use the peacetime operating cost as your guideline, or what it would cost another company to hire your ships?)

Transport reimbursement is intended for forces lacking DropShips and/or JumpShips. Forces with JumpShips factor their costs into the force's full peacetime operating costs, which in turn factor into the Support Payment.

Hiring out your JumpShip is described under the Transport payment example on pg10-11 of the .pdf.

[gomi]

"When calculating equipment value, include all assets which your gaming group plays with. If you have included infantry for 'base security' or aero assets for transport but your group doesn't use infantry rules or play aerospace battles, do not include them when calculating equipment value."

I would limit the contract to "combat assets", ie mechs, Infantary, etc. that are directly used in combat.

This opens the door to employers saying that they only authorized the use of two companies for that combat action, not the full battalion that showed up!

[gomi]

In other words, you want about a 20-year period of return on the investment?

Even with multipliers for higher risk missions (doubling income, roughly), you're asking for a return on investment that sounds longer than it takes to seriously damage or destroy all units in the force (assuming a fairly constant stream of non-garrison missions). Can you find another value for reducing the income of a military force without leaving it destitute from battle damage after a few years?

During WW2, the idea of planned obsolescence was used to reduce the cost of creating combat aircraft, by reducing their operational lifespan to about 20 months. This idea makes sense with battlemech & aerospace fighters, but Dropships & Jumpships!?!

In the flavour text and novels some of the DS & JS have been around for decades or centuries. They are extremely valuable  pieces of technology. A Dropship should have a working life of 50 years and a payback time of 20 years. Only a genius or a fool would risk that by placing it in harms way. And as to the Jumpships, there is a reason that they are non-combat vehicles protected by agreement. The working life of a JS can run in to the centuries.

[Sandslice]

Transport reimbursement is intended for forces lacking DropShips and/or JumpShips. Forces with JumpShips factor their costs into the force's full peacetime operating costs, which in turn factor into the Support Payment.

Hiring out your JumpShip is described under the Transport payment example on pg10-11 of the .pdf.

Ok, that's what I thought.  :)  And now for an example.  WARNING: LONG POST.

"Full sails ahead, oceans painted red when the soldiers of fortune hunt for pirates!" Not realising that she's singing aloud, Becky settles on a Hunting Pirates... err... Pirate Hunting contract for her Southern Cross Brigade.  It's time to figure out her transport costs, since she has no starships.

The mission time breakdown is this.
Transport: 3 months round-trip (4 weeks of DropShip burn, plus 4.4 weeks to do 6 jumps: the first jump each way would already be charged up.  ru(8.4/4)=3.  If this is not the case, then it'd be 10.4 weeks, which is still 3 months.)
Mission: 6 months (defined.)

A 12-'Mech company is best carried by a 2802 Union Dropship; though "uncommon," it is one of the more common Dropships.  Since MUL has no DropShip price listing, I'll use the one Megamek supplies: 222 502 000.
x.005 = 222502 x 5 = 1 112 510 per month.

The SCB will use 32.4 tons of resource just on POC, leaving 51.6 tons of the Union's cargo capacity for extra armour, ammo, and loot.  This is kinda low, and Becky considers adding a cheap Buccaneer for cargo; but then she reasons that the Marik liaison won't spring for "excess" cargo capacity, so she leaves that alone.

The JumpShip is, ideally, a Scout.  They're not as common as Merchants or Invaders, but wasting jump collars makes the baby Nicky K cry.  At 100k per jump, that's 600k; 6 months idle at 400k per month per collar = 2.4m, for a total of 3 million.

Becky tallies up the transport cost before compensation:
1 112 510 x 9 = 10 012 590
+3m= 13 012 590 cbills.

Finally, she estimates 53.88%* for transport compensation, because she wants to figure out long term averages of leasing vs. owning starships.  Thus, her average transport cost will be 6 000 250 cbills, with a decent chance of being nil!

*Actually 53.88 repeating.  I multiplied each result by the chance of getting it, and added up those results.  13012590 x 46.11...% = 6000249.8 333...
-------------

Now Becky considers what would happen if she owned the ships.  The first problem she runs into is that a Union needs 72.65 tons of supplies by itself, not considering fuel mass, over a 9-month campaign - and that's more ammo than maintenance!  Fortunately, three of those months are on the JumpShip, but the DS and 'Mechs still need 70 tons for 6 months, leaving 4 tons for spare ammo, armour, parts, etc.  The only way around it is to make a supply run back to the JumpShip, with more cost and/or an extra risk of interference... or to get a second DropShip.

Union: 3600 tons.
Roll to acquire: 11! (22/5 = 5 base, +5 Dropship, +1 Military.)  Virtually the same as a Seeker, actually.
POC: 54k (parts) + 382500 (ammo!) + 414k (fuel) + 14600 (salaries) + 500 (another admin, since personnel goes up to 110) = 865 600, less if we crack water.

Scout JS: 90k tons.
Roll to acquire: 7 (277/100 = 3 base, +1 Military, +3 Rare.)
POC: 135k (parts) + 439650 (fuel, yay 9.77t/bd!) + 13350 (salaries) + 1000 (2 more admins for 17 crew) = 589 000.  That's actually kinda cheap.

Total: 1 454 600 per month: 13 091 400 for this campaign.  At least with this pair of ships, the difference is pretty moot.

Becky notices that, if the compensations are equal, there's not much difference between owning and leasing, though she wishes the Union weren't such an ammo hog.

However, then she estimates the long-term value of support as she did transport, and it's eye-opening: 38.88%* repeating!  Thus she would expect to drop 8 003 000 out of pocket.

*Support is odd.  At no modifier, you have a better chance of a big return (15 vs. 10 rolls,) but a better chance of no direct support (16 rolls, 15 of which are BLC.)  That's why support is "worth" a flat 15% less than transport.

More curiously, your best average return on direct support is at -1: 41.66% (or 5/12 of cost.)  A -2 modifier gives you the best chance of getting support, at 24/36 (2/3 of the possible rolls,) at a still-solid 40% average return.  That is, of course, if you want straight support instead of BLC.

I'll post more thoughts later.  In short, get ships and make your own hydrogen if possible.