If you're just coming to this now, I really do recommend going back and reading some of the exchanges I had with Welshman back in 2011. He gave us some deeper insight into what he was thinking and why the Teppo turned out the way it did. The article itself also has a lot of my own observations at the time when we didn't have any other measuring sticks.
One little bit of fine print in case you don't go back, though. [legal] The Tenmaku trailer is the one with the large stock of comms gear. The Teppo doesn't have enough communications equipment to do much of anything special other than pick up soap operas from the civilian channels without tying up the commander's channel back to HQ. Customarily, the DCMS apparently intended the Tenmaku to be hauled by a Teppo but it's not actually required by the game rules. Whether the DCMS will see things as pragmatically as I do is your problem, of course. O:-)
Personally, I'm not a a big fan of the whole super-heavy concept or the trailers, not least because of the transport complications. False Son's points about their practicality are also worth keeping in mind. Many of these would-be colossi are also painfully slow. This is all endemic to the type and can't really be held against the Teppo individually. I just don't think the thing is worthwhile vs. breaking the functions back out into multiple smaller vehicles that can maneuver independently.
Where the Teppo suffers is being the first iteration of the super-heavy command/support unit concept and it didn't have either the profligate use of XLFEs seen in the 3145 round of TROs or some of the newer toys, being built largely with production-grade hardware that was on the market before or shortly into the Jihad. I suspect that the design was deliberately conservative from the DCMS's perspective to avoid introducing too many major complications at once. Out of game, TRO3085 was clearly much more conservative with the new TacOps toys than later TROs or even the units put together for RS3067 Unabridged. With that in mind, the Teppo's design decisions come into clearer focus.
It's not a bad unit as an example of the type, especially since this was the one that went out there and proved the idea. A lot of the basic features are still present on something like the Destrier, for instance. The Teppo's role as a self-deployed artillery and command bunker gives it some capabilities that were unique for a few decades and the artillery fire from that one big vehicle is impressive. Even if you are in the mindset of seeing it as a bunker, a Teppo doesn't suffer as badly from counter-battery fire as a real bunker would. AE against buildings is horrifyingly effective.
