I'm hoping this thread can explore a simple notion: which technology would be more useful in combat? Obviously this question relies on specifics. Namely the conditions of battle, such as its scale and the balance of power (e.g asymmetric or symmetrical). As well as the capabilities of each technology. In Fallout stealthboys make nightkin basically invisible (translucent), and presumably have a similar affect when equipped, but that's about all we know of its potential. Later titles, including the cancelled Van Buren project would establish the idea that it was reverse engineered from a suit. Given how warfare has progressed IRL, I would have to side with stealth fields. Give it to any unit for any mission and they can be more effective, without any penalty. It would be useful in reconnaissance, ambush, and even basic maneuvering. Such as redeploying, moving from cover to cover or simply making use of it. The importance of such matters cannot be overstated. Power armor primarily increases one's capacity to bear weight. That means armor, weapons, or really any kind of supplies. However that the Fallout world has decided to use that to make a full body suit, is one of it's biggest issues. What do you do when someone is injured? How do you treat someone with a back or neck injury, or really anything that makes it dangerous to move them? Either way, it makes troops slower, limits their sphere of awareness (think touch and proprioception), and as a consequence of both of those points--even without any kind of "agility penalty" or decrease in the range of motion (unlikely)--increase the time needed to react or make use of cover. It would also make one louder and easier to notice. However, this probably means longer service hours and a lower fitness requirement for soldiers. Which could mean older and therefore more experienced soldier's being fit for duty. It might also mean a lower reduction in combat effectiveness when injured, if servos do most of the work. Or a capacity to serve despite an otherwise crippling injury, such as the loss of a limb. They would however be immensely expensive, not just to build but to maintain. The first would actually be more problematic b/c it would be much cheaper for the enemy to destroy. You probably wouldn't need anti-tank weaponry, but there is always that. Which begs the question of why not just have tanks? The pros and cons are one thing, but there really isn't much point of using them in lieu of tanks. Since a walking tank, like any other tank, would probably not be well suited to holding ground. Whereas larger vehicles would still be best for taking it. So power armor would really only be useful in support roles, in close quarters, and more so in urban combat than anything else. Great for SWAT teams on the home front I imagine. Another interesting point is that the natural evolution of armored vehicles, of which power armor is one, is already explored. Employing stealth fields on any kind of scale beyond the individual soldier is unknown. Vehicles that are difficult to identify and track optically is one thing, but erasing your camps and bases from the map...I don't even know where to start.