@FTXCommando - I'm in the rare position of agreeing with absolutely everything your just said Apart from, perhaps, the proposed solution...
I think a couple of better ones have been proposed in this thread. In order of what I think will be most successful:
- Tune the interaction between Sniper/Shield mixes and Titan/Loyalist pushes specifically. +0.5 speed on the latter, 25% increase in shield drain, and a reduction of something like 10% in shield HP would, I think, have quite an effect.
- Increase T3 Mobile Arty range as FunkOff suggested, though the balance with Fatboy needs to be careful. I believe Fatboy should still outrange them, so if you go this route the numbers I suggest are Mobile Arty 90 -> 105, Fatboy 100 -> 110. I don't think that would break Fatboy particularly. Keep the necessity to deploy, it's a key part of their balance in other matchups.
End of the day, I think it's also important to realise that "They can get this strong on the main battlefield so the others have to too" is not the only way to balance factions. You could pursue a route which recognises that, hey, a good Aeon or Seraphim player in the lategame with a properly constructed and microed army just cannot be stopped by UEF or Cybran on the ground without going T4, and give UEF and Cybran wins in other situations. Perhaps the solution to a group of Mobile Shields, Snipers, and Harbingers/Othuums should be T3 Gunships or Strats. Perhaps you could look at slowing down both Mobile Shields and Snipers, meaning that they take longer to cover ground while the team of Titans or Loyalists which can no longer take them head off spear around the back to attack your T3 PGens directly and crap all over your base to drop the Shields. Perhaps for Aeon, you make Disrupters and Snipers a unit pair by giving Snipers a penalty against Shields with a negative damage multiplier, forcing the Aeon player to spend mass on Distrupters which is wasted against Percivals, or mass on Snipers to counter Percivals which is wasted on Titans. Cybrans could then have their own strategies of sneakiness buffed, or just given a stronger win elsewhere.
There's lots of different ways to approach this and it deserves a bit more thought I think. Removing the deployment time, however, does not strike me as the correct answer. @Tex is correct, that is likely to lead to more problems down the line. It smells of a bandage on a larger problem to me.