Zazen you write very well. I wish I had such a talent. I just can't accept your characterization of the different "types" of people that comprise each of the 3 countries.
From your well written post you would have me believe that the people in each "country" have different values and ways of doing things maybe even different thought values. That perhaps the citizens of these countries have different cultures and that explains why they all behave differently.
I would rather think that all three countries behave exactly the same way. Maybe it depends who is observing the behavior and makes note of it at the time.
As I said my writting on BBS's is horrible so I hope at least you can decipher what I typed. 
Or maybe I'm just flat wrong and all Rooks really are alt monkeys. 
Thank-You kindly for the compliment. I truly enjoy writing, especially about things I enjoy or believe in. Keep in mind that, although I may sound like I am trying to persuade you to my point-of-view, really what I want to do is encourage intelligent debate especially if the topic is contentious. As I told Corky yesterday in the MA, "Whether a debate has a definitive conclusion or not it always serves to promote mutual understanding". Even if you cannot be persuaded to adopt another stance you will at the very least glean insights into the other's perspective and in doing so develop respect and recognition of the potential validity of a point-of-view other than your own. Believe it or not this is a huge step in basic human relations, try to apply this same concept to group dynamics and understanding and it's a monumental undertaking.
I've always been a powerful observer. I spend a lot of time watching squadrons and the roster, filming people, watching the strategic map, watching how people go about attacking fields tactically and listening to communications. I will often compile statistics and try to amalgamate that data rationally with my personal observations into a trend or propensity that cannot simply be the result of random distribution. I am fascinated by the human dynamic of this genre, I even wrote a behavioral psychology paper on it when I was in college. So when I tell you the three countries retain and attract a core of players that have different goals and ideas of fun, I am not just saying that on a whim or from some isolated ivory tower of limited perspective.
Let's start with a little recent history, some readers were here for it, some weren't...
Several years ago Bishops were by far the most populated country. During most times during most days Bishops outnumbers Rooks 3:1 and Knights 2:1. They milk-horded everything, this went on unchecked, there were no ENY modifiers or any such contrivance back then, just the perks we have today. After 18 months of this Rooks decided they were going to prove a point. We created RJO and on one night through a network of Squadron CO's we got virtually every Rook on line, we had mission assignments by individual squadrons, and an overall CO.
Needless to say we totally creamed the Bishops who were quite unaccustomed to getting cakewalked. Immediately the Bishops pissing and moaning went up on the forums, little mention made of the fact Bishops have done this virtually everynight without having to even really organize it just by virtue of sheer numbers. Well, you may be able to guess the rest. RJO persisted in diluted form one Sunday a month for awhile until the deafening roar of whines on the BBS ultimately caused HTC to implement the ENY modifier we all love and enjoy today. Keep in mind while this was happening Bishops still retained much of their numerical superiority on every other night of the week, just not Sundays anymore as almost every Rook squadron changed their weekly squadnights to Sunday.
After some time things stabilized but the ENY modifier never really made people change countries that much all it did was make people LoGoff or suffer in a plane they would not normally choose to fly. Bish continued to be ultra-real estate junkies, Rooks continued to be die hard scrappers as the trial of fire of 18 months of being banged taught them how to be. Knights accrued those disenfranchised by the other two to add to the loyal core of squadrons transplanted from WB's and AW. Ever since the immediate fall-out of RJO and the ENY debacle the die was cast, the core of players and their approaches were affiliated with a certain country.
I am by no means saying every Bish is a X type player and every Rook is Y type player. That would be a gross oversimplification. What I am saying is it is really quite obvious sociologically that people with common goals tend to coalesce. The more time that passes the more true this becomes. AH is an air combat game with a social aspect, it is adversarialism in a rather pure form. So, with conflict and social bonds you can assume, just like in any other "closed" environment, group dynamics form which influences those associated within the group and any group or individual it interacts with.
I balk at using this example, but I can't think of a more appropriate one...
In prison, inmates of various races are initially randomly assigned to various areas and cells. Without conflict and socializing/communication that would probably stay the status quo. But once you collect individuals with different goals together, infuse the situation with conflict and provide a medium for discourse (socialization) random allocation no longer exists. An adversarial environment within the randomly allocated group with diverse goals causes those of the same races to break away from pack and band together as they presumably have similar goals for mutual protection, security and how to conduct business.
So, in AH there really is unique group dynamics associated with each country born by adversarliasm expressed through conflict and communicated socially. If WWII has taught us anything it is that group thinking is very effective at overwhelming a single individual's inhibitions. So, the group thinking core of each country exudes influence upon individuals or smaller groups within its domain. A lot like harmonic resonance theory those individuals will be drawn to the group dynamic if it resonates strongly with their own goals and ideas. The reverse is also true, those that have opposite goals and ideas will tend to be repelled and seek to join with others more closely attuned. The longer the group dynamic process continues the more strongly it resonates and attracts the like-minded while repulsing those not congruent, in this community it has been going on for 20 Years.
I have done my part to explain why, "Birds of a feather flock together". Some have said they do not believe this, that perhaps AH is an anomaly in the Universe whereby elements intrinsically bound by the fundamental forces of attraction do not seek to naturally congregate whereever possible to form a whole, but instead randomly distribute themselves homogeneously never to be drawn together again. Given the microcosmic to the macrocosmic truths and laws that bind all things in the universe I find it extremely hard to be persuaded the laws of the universe, perfect in every way from creation to now, failed in just this one regard. That somehow human souls and minds are not an abstract microcosmic representation of the macrocosmic universe, that like minds do not tend to associate and collaborate. Instead the 5,000+? AH'ers just randomly and arbitrarily associate with one country or another, no conscious decision making, just eenie, meanie, minie, moe?
Find me proof of that and I will explore that point-of-view more thoroughly with you.
Until then I am standing by empirical evidence that Bishops tend to milk-horde fields with "war winning" as their primary goal, Rooks tend to furball as air combat is their primary goal and Knights tend to apply themselves flexibly to maximally retrain the other two by reacting dynamically.
