Ok, if you do not enjoy reading my sermonizing pontifications stop reading now. I am actually glad this got posted in the forums as my fingers grow weary of typing this almost everyday in-game.
AH is a game, but most of us work for a living. Work is generally very organized as your actions are largely prescribed by your 'superiors'. Once organization in a game becomes mandatory it ceases to become a game, it becomes unpaid work. Some people enjoy the rigid structure of missions, some just want to get organized now and then as a change of pace, some just want to do their own thing, trusting their own judgement to apply themselves where most useful. Once coercion is applied at any level to attempt to make people organize against their will, when they otherwise would not be inclined to do so, you make the game less fun for them. If you make the game less fun for enough people on your team often enough, guess what will happen? They will either leave your team, not play at all, or squelch you.
In AH we have many types of players at various levels of skill and experience with affinities toward a wide variety of gameplay modes. It is human nature to be pragmatic, left to their own devices people tend to apply themselves in such a way as to achieve a goal while getting the most personal satisfaction from the experience. So, in essence people are motivated by two things, goals and personal satisfaction aka. fun. Your goals are not likely my goals just as your idea of fun may not be my idea of fun. To be ultimately successful organization in the game happens when you collect together people with the same goal and the same idea of fun. Trying to organize people with entirely different goals and ideas of fun is like herding cats and will inevitably destroy any sense of continuity of effort you may have enjoyed.
For the purpose of this post I am going to use the following comparison between Rooks and Bishops to illustrate my point. I am not trying to malign either one, but as the OP's comments are directed toward Knights, I feel this is the best way to clarify the point objectively.
Bishops tend to organize a lot. That organization tends to be applied in a few consistant ways. All of those applications almost exclusively involve the use of an overwhelming force against a nonexistent or relatively insignificant defense. Very rarely do Bishops apply organization against an airfield with significant defense except when they are losing a fight and bring a large contingent of heavy bombers at high altitude to drop the hangers. If significant defense arrives or materializes at an airfield prior to affecting capture Bishops tend to evaporate only to manifest at an undefended field elsewhere shortly thereafter...
Rooks tend to not be strategically organized. Rooks tend to favor large fights within which they cooperate only on the tactical level. Efforts to capture fields tend to precipitate, almost accidentally, from the outcome of fights in a relatively unorganized way. Rooks are attracted to furballs, as more Rooks enter the fray the fight pushes toward the enemy field, eventually the furball is essentially won and CAP is in place. Once this happens the fighter pilots who are so inclined, with nothing to kill, land and come back heavy with ordnance or troops to help affect capture. Once that base is captured the fight progresses to the next field in a logical progression or to another burgeoning fight on the map and the process continues.
As you can see both countries are motivated by different goals. Bishops tend to be motivated by the goal of affecting the capture of as many fields per unit time as possible which requires organization. While Rooks are motivated by participating in the most enthralling furball possible which does not necessarily require organization. Both countries end up achieving inadvertent secondary goals which serve to ameliorate the potential dissatisfaction of the minority who do not necessarily share the primary goal. Bishop furballers get to dispatch some defenders and Rook landgrabbers get to take some fields. But, for the most part, the primary collective goal dictates the behavior of the group and to a large degree determines its respective level of organization.
The Bishop approach is, in my opinion, the most efficient method of "winning the war". This is especially true on the HUGE maps with hundreds of fields which are impossible to adequately defend reactively. Fighting for bases on HUGE maps really isn't necessary especially with our current reset requirements, so furballing is actually a waste of time and resources from this perspective. To "win the war" you must simply take their fields faster than they can take yours or get their own back. This works for Bishops as the majority of their players share the primary goal of "winning the war". The organization toward that end that they achieve is predicated upon that fact. This is what most Bishops find fun.
Rooks on the other hand are motivated by fighting. There are a few pure "win the war" types on Rooks just as there are a few pure furballers on Bishops. But, for the most part Rook's primary goal and fun-factor is derived from fighting and winning air battles. If the war happens to be won in the process, so be it, but that is not the primary concern. Rooks will often verbally lynch a friendly who drops the fighter hangers or a CV at a good furball even if Rooks are losing the fight at that particular time, even if it ultimately results in the capture of the enemy field. This would be considered ridiculous on Bishops, the same person would likely be heralded as a hero.
Now, let's take for granted I am oversimplifying things for the purpose of contrast. But, it should be readily apparent to any thinking person that trying to organize Rooks to achieve the "win the war" goal they do not ubiquitously share would be futile. It would be just as futile as demanding Bishops suddenly denounce the milk-hording of fields in favor of protracted 5 hour furballs for their own sake. Over-time, human nature brings together people who share the same goals and find the same things fun. If you do not share the same goals as another the surest way to piss them off and alienate yourself is to try to superimpose your goals and ideas of fun upon them. I would even go so far as to say this would make them even more resistant to your ideas or pleas for help. So, if you can't force people to organize to achieve your goals and that ruins your fun-factor you only have two viable options....
1) Switch teams to one that embodies the same goals and ideas of fun.
2) Get creative and find ways to fullfill yourself in a symbiotic way, establishing an ancillary niche for yourself and the like-minded minority that does not require universal approval or participation.
Now applying this to the OP's lambasting of Knights. As a Muppet I fly for the Knights a lot. The Knights are a country in constant flux, they are an ever-changing mixing pot of styles and people. Unlike Bishops and Rooks there is no predominance of one type of player or another. This is what makes Knights a lot of fun but also potentially frustrating. Knights are full of people, more so than the other two countries, that are willing, able and enjoy playing in different modes. As they do not tend to typecast themselves as a furballer, buffer, GV'er etc they are extremely adaptable and dynamic, but also the least focused for the same reasons. Organizing Knights is hard for two main reasons...
1) They have the widest diversity of goals and 'fun-factors'
2) They don't have enormous squads like Bishops do that tend to create cohesiveness of effort.
But, as I mentioned earlier, human nature makes people pragmatic. This pragmatism combined with the Knights diversity of talent individually and collectively makes them indomitable and very unpredictable to fight against. Unlike Bishops and Rooks that tend to behave in a certain predictable way, you never know what Knights will do. So, in a very real way rigidly organizing Knights would destroy the very thing that makes them unique, fun and a challenge to play against.
