The glitch is :
the after battle report showed this as only the air unit directly targeted as the sole attackers (both in the summary and in the attacker detail). It showed no air losses (correct) and no other Allied losses (incorrect, the infantry units lost 5-6% of their strength each). I was surprised by this, and in the midst of a turn, so did not think to save the screenshot... I later checked the sit rep for that battle (see pic). It matches what I remember of the after-battle report. Even though the infantry AND some artillery are shown as directly attacking.
In an earlier test run using Anzio 2KM, I had a similar experience - sorry no screen shots. Combined arms attack on dug in defender, no directed air (combat support only), and both after-battle and sit rep show this as an air "attack" while the ground attackers do suffer appropriate losses.
I recollect a similar glitch back on TOAW 3.2.29.27 -- although, back then, the sit rep would report fully and correctly (or so I thought), only the after-battle report would be "attacking air units only". I do not recall this happening on 3.4.0.202 or with 3xBb.
I'm posting this to bring it to attention, in chance it a) might be fixed, and b) in case it's the upstanding nail that leads to resolving other problem(s). Of course, if you are doing very detailed loss tracking (as part of scenario design, etc.), you need to be aware of this as it means the sit rep nor the after battle reports are partially complete or partially accurate (likely 95%, or higher in accuracy, but...just something to plan around).
The games themselves played well, and I think, accurately. So this glitch is just that -- something erroneous with reporting of the effects of combat. But if the effects are coming straight from the combat-loss-accounting routine, and if (sorry, big IF) that also is off... Also having this occur twice in less than 100 turns on several scenarios (vs no occurrences on 1000's of turns of many scenarios with 3.4.0.202) is noticeable.
Some good news :
a) after-battle report and sit rep AGREE ! better than what happened on 3.2 at least, where you did know which to accept
b) air losses on 3.4.1.9 seem to me about the same as with 3xBb -- nice that all those 20mm and 50cal eqp the units have been dragging around all these years get used again.
c) retreat-from-combat on the new version, seems to me to be easier than 3xBb (and certainly easier than 3.4.0.202), BUT I cannot prove that... when I bother with logs and crawl through those, 3.4.1.9 is very close to what happens with 3xBb. I think 3.4.1.9 has a more dynamic RFC calc than 3xBb's static calc, and I think at the beginning of most scenarios (lots of rested units nearby) make the new patch "easier for attacker" at the start of a scenario. I expect as I get into games going 30, 40 turns, that 3.4.1.9 may not be so 'easy' when I gotta gotta attack with what's available.
