I think you've missed the pinned thread "Balance Thread Guidelines". I don't say you should apply the whole thing to the letter, but the part where it's asked to SHOWCASE the problem is important. By just hosting a sandbox game to demonstrate your impression, you would realize that titans and loyalists are in a fine stat balance wise.
Here's a demonstration : https://replay.faforever.com/14033428. Titans and loyalists trade fine mass for mass angainst their heavy bots conterparts.
Titans espacially fill a specific role in a t3 army since percies have such a bad rate of fire. Brick vs loyalists is another story, but still, loyalists have a reason to be made : far superior mobility.
Now why are those two units underbuild ? I can see few reasons:
- Few people are able to effectively use mobility and prefer making big chunky armies.
- People play maps where mobility isn't important, and where spam is not dominant (astro, canis, wonder, gap, seton ...)
- People are stuck with the idea that those units are terrible, and will always spam percies/bricks even in situations where titans/loyalists would be better
... and probably others ...
I don't think a bufff or a nerf will change anything to those reasons.
And lastly, I think the role of the balance team is to make sure all units are usable and have some specifity that make you want to use them, while avoiding situation where one unit is clearly so dominant we won't make anything but this one.
I think we are exactly in that situation with T3 bots : none is overpowered over the others, each unit has its advantages and its drawbacks, so in theory all of them are usable.
What is clearly not the role of the balance team is to buff one unit cause it's "cool and should be played more". Otherwise the CZAR will be 5 times less expansive