I say just make them slower in both speed and weapon turning. That OR bring out some specific AV grenades that don't do damage but rather cut down the speed or cut out barriers. Seriously. Just make these grenades fairly expensive, so that Mercs can't just throw them like hot potatoes, and I believe that's all we need.

Yes, you can carry a couple team mates around and hand them assists, but you don't require them. Each of them can call in their own and run along with you, or pick up a gun and kill the AV guy before he can get close to you.

Right now a tank is the equivalent of a super duper heavy proto suit that one man can strap on. It has superior armor, shields, rep, mobility, CPU, PG, and weapon slots than any other suit you could possibly build. It is faster than a scout, has more HP than a dozen heavies, more rep, and a gun that's over a magnitude better than anything a heavy can carry, and it never runs out of ammunition. Other than not being able to hack, having a large hitbox, and being swarm lockable, there is no downside.

I'm still waiting for a tanker to debate this point with me.

In World War I the German Empire developed the Patrone SmK Kurz 7.92mm for the Gewehr 98 which could penetrate up to 12-13mm of armor at 100m, the British Mk I-Mk III tanks had 12mm of armor. In June 1917 the UK came out with the Mk IV which rendered it useless by using a better steel but still keeping 12mm thickness, the Germans responded a year later with the Mauser 1918 and it's 13.2mm Tank und Flieger which could penetrate 22mm of the higher grade steel at 91m and 19mm at 500m.

In WW2 the very first of the Panzerfaust, Faustpatrone, could penetrate up to 140mm of RHA and was available in 1942. The earliest US and Soviet tanks to be able to laugh off a direct hit to the front glacis plate (the most heavily armored part) were the M60 Patton that was made in 1960 and the T-64 in '63. The Germans also had by 1944 the Panzerfaust 60, which could penetrate up to 220mm of armor. The Soviets being ahead of us in armor schemes up until recently were able to beat it with the T-64, we didn't have one until 1979 when we made the Abrams.

And this has always been the case throughout human history, offensive abilities always outpace defensive ones. So, yes, whilst the tank has been the fear of the infantryman, that is only because it is impractical for a sufficient number of troops to be equipped with the latest of anti-tank weaponry, the ones that were equipped with the latest in anti-tank weapons, however, were capable of destroying tanks with hilarious ease such that even an RPG-7 with a PG-7VT tandem warhead was capable of crippling the most heavily armored tank in the world with a single shot as was such when in 2003 Iraqi insurgents knocked out an Abrams by hitting it in a left-side rear panel and a man portable Metis-M ATGM can penetrate the armor of an Abrams from any angle.

I already acknowledged that this super duper Titan suit is too large to go everywhere, but it can go just about everywhere that matters and faster than a scout to boot so that's hardly a limitation that matters.

What I want is either a recognition from a tank driver that he basically has a Titan suit or a convincing refutation.

I haven't gotten either so far, just side tracking. What say you to my question?

So you agree that it's a one man Titan and believe that the only limitation that power needs is but more map restrictio?

How much of the map should it have access to?

So what you're saying is...it's like a super dropsuit, but better?

That doesn't sound like a refutation.