Most of the maps that haven't had bot support built in are either not suitable for low human player counts (nobody wants to play 1v1 KOTG because of the size, and nobody wants to play 1v1 bonsai because of the nuke lottery, even if either map or anything similar has bots milling around) or are centered around gameplay that bots flat out can't comprehend (any naval map, Pipeline because of the oil, and Antlion because teamed bots basically ignore neutrals). Hell, bots already have a little bit of trouble with Guard Duty even though the Soviet bots are forbidden from utilizing the airfield, just because it exists and Soviet bots can spawn inside it but they can't get out without suiciding and either team's bots can't get in to shoot/repair the MCT.
Complex and Seamist are pretty much the only "low-player" maps that don't have bots and are suitable for them, and if I were to take the effort to hook up the rally point system for those two maps (and custom attack/defend objectives for seamist so that bots prioritize the dome), I still doubt a mere 2 extra maps is going to solve the perceived "not enough maps" problem.
On the other hand, "get rid of smart map selection" is a worse idea. Having big maps like ridge war or hostile waters showing up while the server is empty is not going to draw people in.
For a while, I'm going to disable bots and expand the super-low player map list to include every AOW map suitable for low players instead of just the bot ones (so adding Seamist, Coastal, Complex, Pacific, Pipeline and Under), include only one infantry map (Antlion for now) because if it ever decides to play 2 inf maps in a row that's instant server death, and see what happens. It can't hurt