The logistics gap isn't the problem. It clouds the problem. No one complains about a logi attached to a galassault's hip. Nor do people complain about logis attached to sentinels in the open.

So is the logi making the sentinel unfair?

Or is the sentinel being able to force combat in terrain where he can minimize any chance of a flank making the logi more potent?

Sentinels are entirely too good at attrition warfare to be a good thing in CQC. In the open, assaults can freely maneuver into a superior position Which allows a skilled assault to kill the geavy regardless of weapon. In CQC the assault gets funnelled directly into close quarters with a weapon-resistant heavy with twice to three times his EHP. That's a losing prospect even if the fatty is using a sidearm.

In the open the logi can help. But you don't need to drop an RE down the heavy's pants to get to him.

The less advantageous CQC is for sentinels, the faster the fatty/logi synergy breaks down to manageable levels.

PS. If you remove vehicles from OMS, I don't know why you would, but if you do... Isn't Ambush OMS just going to be Ambush then?

That's a very debatable point. It's not so much that the weapons as skill-less....that's a poor term indeed it is that the weapon is very hands off about the way it applies damage....though to some degree that is a very exploitable weakness of the weapon.

CCP rattati don't you dare rip a hole in lore just to give us Anti-shield swarms >:(