I would love to see npcs participating in battles
guardsmen to defend some forts for example, or more boyz if the ftps are few, cultists that hold captured forts and guardians that follow important vehicles


i-it's not like that I want to see tyranids attacking in huge waves during major conflicts or anything, b-baka

With the stress this would put on the server/engine. No.

I'd have to say no to NPCs out on the front lines, since that could lead to people searching for battles that are high in NPC and low in actual players just to farm the NPCs for easy kills, points etc if the NPCs aren't made t be worthless as a kill. There's also the point brought up about adding more stress the servers by added even more combat on top of 500 vs 500 players.

Having NPCs boost low numbers is a handicap and goes against the "universe is unfair" theme of 40k; imagine leading a covert force of 100 to assault a fortress and disrupt, your intel tells you they have 200 defenders. Your force moves up for the attack, only to have the 100 NPCs you didn't plan for open fire and give away your position.

If the NPCs cost resources to deploy and respawn, then a small force suddenly becomes a huge drain on resources due to the constantly spawning NPCs being farmed to use up all the other side's resources.

NPCs out of combat, such as milling around and performing duties on the Strike Cruisers, would be a nice touch but I don't think they'd work in combat in a supporting role.

You're right the, the NPC kills would have to be made pretty worthless. Remember that it wouldn't throw it off the unfair theme too much if they're guardsmen. It wouldn't have to affect the course of the battle. Just give you something to shoot at.

I was thinking more along the lines of a force of 200 attacks a base where only 30-40 players a present. However there would also be about 300 NPCs present. These NPCs are going to die really fast (being guardsmen or equivalent) but if you have only 50 men to attack with it's gonna be a struggle. The point being that it places emphasis on needing more men to attack a base with than there are defending it because you are at a disadvantage. Whilst also giving people in this 200 strong force something to shoot at whilst they're waiting.

Of course at a larger scale say 400 vs 300 it's not gonna matter anywhere near as much because of the way battles scale. So there needn't be any NPCs present at all.
If that makes sense.

40 vs 200, while stacked in the defenders favour, could still be doable if the 40 are skilled and use stealth. Being forced to take 300 NPC blows any chance they have to sneaking in and taking out defenders before they realise they're even under attack. Even if the NPC entourage is optional, I fail to see how it'd be beneficial.

It's not, but looks like tons of people are scared of pvp and they just want to farm npcs without any challenge.

That's what I'm afraid of; farming NPCs for easy points. Then again, we have the Tyranids for that, but they fight back.

No, my point would be that it is ONLY defenders who get NPCs not attackers.

Bulking up the defenders with mindless AI who can't use tactics or respond to commands would be pretty much the same as leaving the defenders without any NPC, only there's the 'benefit' of the attackers having easy kills to farm. And if they cost resources, the attacks can sit back and drain the defenders' resources without fear of losing anyone because the NPC are so weak.

War online had npc's in the pvp zone. It was pretty much a train wreck.