Heroes & Generals Being Drafted For Closed Beta

Heroes there, but no generals.
Promising-looking persistent World War II shooter Heroes & Generals – which offers a hybrid of FPS action and strategic play – is now taking sign ups for its closed beta. It’s an ambitious-looking title, not least because of the way the strategy side of the game is being handled as an over-arching meta-game – there’s even going to be a mobile app that will allow generals to move their resources around in the persistent map part of the game while on the move. It’s a bold concept, one step beyond what we’ve seen from this kind of hybrid previously. Have a gander at the video below for some elucidation on that count.

We’ll get stuck into this beta ourselves soon, and let you know a bit more about how it plays. In the meantime, get signed up.


  1. Hazzard65 says:

    Poor World War 2 Online.

    • gladius2metal says:

      not necessarily, ww2online appears way more hardcore than this game. But the last time I played was back in 2004 or 5 or 6… ages

      • neonordnance says:

        From what I’ve played of the alpha, H and G cuts a pretty nice middle ground between hardcore and mainstream. It’s not quite Darkest Hour (if you havent played that go try it!) But its also more serious than, say, the first Call of Duty.

        Really excited for the beta.

    • danimalkingdom says:

      I hear you. At least WW2Online did something fresh, with the 1940 battle for France. The post D-Day setting, and the mournful trumpets aside, I’m enjoying Heroes and Generals.

    • Leosaurus says:

      I’ve been in alpha the whole time and been able to play, and now that we’ve been released from the NDA I can say that this has been pretty great so far. They’re making good progress on the few graphical bugs I’ve encountered, but it’s been pretty fun and the degree of customization for “hero units” is pretty awesome. The only snag I have is it can take awhile to get enough to purchase a strategic level unit (assault team) and you may not get the slot you want in your own team, but they are fixing that soon.

  2. Redsplinter says:

    This looks like it has the potential to be amazing, assuming there is some way to keep griefers/true asshats from ruining the strategic side.

    • gladius2metal says:

      for a World War I game this would make sense if “griefer” is equal to general that sends his soldiers into a senseless slaughter, but in the end/very long run, is war anything else than that anyway?

      • bob. says:

        So basically all real WW I generals were “griefers” then… anyway, good game I think and at least they have reasonable gold prices so I actually invested in some war bonds and unlocked some assault teams. Until it’s more than 20 players on one map it’s rather boring, though.

  3. Surlywombat says:

    I’ve played a little and it is pretty good. The strategic map really adds a level to the gameplay. It’s still rather early days yet but its promising.

  4. kaffis says:

    This is the sort of thing that gets me excited over just plain action shooters. I loved the notion when Allegiance did it, but the timing on Allegiance just wasn’t right for me to really get sucked into it.

    Too bad this wastes the ambitious premise on a WW2 setting. /yawn

  5. MadMatty says:

    fairly promising, ive been in beta for 2 months.

    Gameplay is smooth, controls are intuitive- it also draws fields waaay into the distance, actually making it a valid tactic to hide in the grass/corn fields.

    Was only about 3 fixed maps last time i played- i think they were recreating the cities by using geographical data, altho that isnt on yet.

    Had more fun than Red Orchestra 2!

  6. hench says:

    Been in the alpha/beta since last year. Still haven’t been able to try a game because of lots of lag and bugs but that’s expected I guess. Maybe should try and see if it’s playable now.
    Though I lost all hope when they announced F2P + unlocks.

  7. sianma41 says:

    Ramsgate! shame theirs no big rivers there though :P