If some sort of CoC doesn't exist, I have a hard time believing this game will fill it's full potential. If it's just an "every group for themselves" mentality, I can't envision how in the world there will be any cohesion and effectiveness of the house. Instead of a spearheaded attack with a purpose, it'll be a bunch of a freelancing groups trying to "get theirs".
Again, the CoC doesn't need a prince, a master, a president, or whatever...it needs infrastructure to communicate and plan attacks and defenses. But someone, or someones (eek!), will rise to the top and help organize it, whether the game supports it or not. Will every unit and pilot cooperate? Of course not, but that's been the case in every game of this magnitude. People can play, or not play in this case, however they choose. It's their account. But the CoCesque idea will happen one way or the other on some scale, large or small. It's a logistical, and for a lot of us, roleplaying advantage IMHO.
Absolute power will corrupt absolutely
CoC or round table you are correct, if the wrong people are in that position you will have issues. However it is my opinion that a round table is the better choice over a CoC because you will still need one person to call the shots in a CoC, and you WILL have subordinates. Now I don't know about you but if I were in command of my own unit, I would much rather come to a round table and be equal to all present than be included in a CoC and be subordinate to someone I may not like. Thats just how I feel about it, however I am not in command of a unit so I don't have to worry about it, BUT, I have witnessed these very selfsame issues in other community style games and the round table idea always worked out better than an actual CoC. As for logistics and infrastructure (CoC), its already there in the individual units themselves, the decission making is done by a council of unit commanders (the round table), theirs your communication.
Kensai the wandering warrior
Edited by Kensaisama, 05 April 2012 - 06:04 AM.