Were you two responsible for different ends of the universe or something?
And can we help the search in any way?
Also, a question of fluff: Are we influential on the developments in our nation, who lives/dies/gets constipated, or is that firmly in the realm of the GM?
While we do bounce ideas off each other and proof read stuff to make sure it makes sense in-universe, we have split responsiblilities for different areas between us. Marcus was handling the Terrans, and wrote the most of the stuff that involved the Great Houses (Including the Taurians getting stomped and the Rasalhagian Death Ride) I've focused on the Periphery, with the exception of the aforementioned Death Ride most of the RWR/PoR related shenanigans has been me.
Realise we haven't done a 'State of Inner Sphere Leadership' in a while... need to get on that...
Marcus and I have a system for generating the leaders of each nation and a basic description of their mood/skill. Essentially boils down to two 3d6 rolls, one to determine how Warlike or Peace-loving/Defensive a ruler is, with a modifier depending on the nation (Combine tends to be warlike, Lyrans tend to be more peace-loving for example.) This temperament gives a +/-5/10/15% modifier to your naval budget depending on how hardcore they are about Peace or War, with a small opposite effect (1/2/3%) on your nations economic growth. The extreme ends of the personality table (Jinjiro Kurita at one end, that lady who ruled the OWA during the Amaris Coup who thought that Amaris and Kerensky could sort their differences out if they just talked about it at the other who's name escapes me) need a natural 3 or 18 roll to happen. The other 3d6 roll is to determine competency, an incompetent leader increases the budget modifier he's already applying, but also a -1% penalty to economic growth and is more likely to pick a fight he can't win. Meanwhile a particularly skilled leader gives an additional 1% boost to the economy, due to being able to get every last c-bill to work for him.
For example: An Extremely warlike but incompetent leader (like Kali Liao perhaps?) would give a huge +20% boost to your naval budget (applied after all other modifiers like any territory gains) but apply a -4% penalty to your economic growth. A big boost now for some long term pain.
On the other hand a Very (but not extremely) peaceful, skilled leader might hit you with a -10% budget penalty now, but the +3% increase to your economy, which would pay for itself in a few turns even while he's in power, and long term is going to be good for your naval budget.
Or the worst possibility for you, a Extremely peaceful, yet stupid leader. Crippling your navy with a -20% budget penalty, while only growing the economy by 2% a turn. Truly a disaster...
The massive change in the Terran Hegemony's naval budget is largely due to going from a Very Peaceful/Defensive leader to one who is not, while at the other end the Taurian budget basically went unchanged because they went from a Warlike leader to a neutral one.
