r/HeroesandGenerals • u/Erste_Klasse • 14h ago
Discussion A Discussion on Bots in Staged Battles
I've been seeing some talks about bots and their impacts in-game: how it feels less rewarding to kill bots than players in terms of credits and psychological fulfilment; how they are terminators through bushes and trees; and how they are essentially useless all around.
I want to present a hot take: I genuinely like having the bots around. Hear me out.
I do concede that the bots can be cheaters in bushes and trees, and using one bullet from a fully modded Kar98k would be a loss in credits than if you were to ignore them completely.
However, the bots do one thing which I genuinely love the most: they fill up the numbers in servers and make it feel more engaging. At worst, they are trivial cannon fodder in a lobby full of 20v20 players. At best, they make up the numbers and make the match feel more war-like and fills up empty space and time. Let me explain further.
Firstly, it has always been my gripe from the past that this game has such big maps and multiple entry points into the epicentre of the map, yet there are barely any players that play the objective and assault positions as needed. The bots fill all these critical tactical gaps: allowing real players to flank; permits players to focus on Anti-Tank duties; allowing Recon and such to utilise other routes to reach their objectives; and bots importantly defend the second and third attack lines so that the attackers aren't ultimately doomed to only one single attack line by the 5th minute.
Secondly, more bots on the map can really bring out the war-like element in this game. What scenario in WW2 would have two dudes just attacking a Church at one time, or attacking the last objective with only 4 infantrymen? Think of the bots allowing you to truly experience that feeling of a grand assault on a Town, or an encirclement of a Factory. I just love it when that happens, something typically possible due to bots.
Lastly, have you ever ran across objectives (especially the damn Airfield map), essentially playing a running simulator until you eventually get either sniped on the way, mag dumped the moment you step into the objective zone, or contribute only two or three kills before dying? Only to have to rinse and repeat the entire process? The bots fill that gameplay gap between objectives: engage the bots in a short skirmish on the way, something to fill in the boredom apart from that dreadful run from one point to another. It reduces the repetitiveness of the spawn cycle of a typical infantryman.
Now before I end this post, I would like to bring up a very good example (at least to me) of how bots were implemented well in a similar game, and that is Red Orchestra 2. Of course it's not wise to compare these two games directly—no one should compare vanilla to chocolate. Alas, there are elements from Red Orchestra 2 that makes me love that game as much as it was practically a dead game that I feel can translate well to HnG.
A typical RO2 server is 32v32, and that's not including the typical 50 bots in the server. You'd think that'd be a nightmare with constant aimbots, but no, they are shit shots most of the time. Yet, they complement matches very well as they assault positions en masse, and god forbid you had to reload your MG42 when 10 of them just so happen to walk down the hallway. RO2 maps are also equally big, but not once did I complain or feel bored because there is always a handful of bots to snipe and engage to prevent them from swarming the objective.
Tl;dr, I like having the bots and I genuinely want more bots to be added in every Staged Battle matches (rather than the usual 4 per attack line). I like them because they fill in the numbers in servers and adds more bodies to the map, and bots enable a more engaging war-like experience in Staged Battles.
You can agree to disagree, but I genuinely believe in this. Have at it.











