Bugs are fixed based on a variety of things
- How long will it take to fix
- Will fixing it break something else
- How game breaking is the bug
etc
And each of those have subsets under them like "Is this bug even replicable" and "Is this bug actually costing us money to the point where we will make more money fixing it".
I work with developers for a living as what's basically glorified Q&A as part of my job. A big part of dealing with devs is making sure your bug report is VERY clear and concise with as little useless fluff and confusing unrelated details as possible, and to make sure the bug is very easily replicable with bullet point steps on what you did (don't lie, they don't care that you were dumb they just need to know what you did).
Don't send a giant wall of text paragraph with no breaks in it describing what you had for breakfast before you launched the game, just say "If you use this army type to invade an ice planet, the game crashes" and then include screen shots of the army, planet, and the game save, and if there's more steps involved than just one or two have it in a numerical or bullet point list
The next step is the devs have to evaluate how much is involved with fixing it and get an okay from the "money man" higher up who pays the bills. Dev hours are extremely valuable and the hottest sought after currency in a company. Many devs make 60-120+ dollars an hour, and companies often value dev time higher than that at hundreds of dollars per dev hour, because the dev could be doing something else that will actually make them money.
So the "Money Man" has to say "Okay is it worth us paying $150 an hour for 30+ hours of work to fix a minor bug barely impacts gameplay and takes the player a 30 second work around to fix? What about instead we have the dev spend those 30+ hours working on making new content for the next DLC instead . . . .
$150 an hour is cheap for what many companies would value dev time at when figuring costs (even if the dev isn't paid the majority of that charge), but if that took 30 hours then that's $4,500 to fix a single bug. The DLC sells for $10 and under on sale, and $20 full price, so even at full price they would need to sell an
extra 225 copies of the DLC solely because of the bug fix, just to cover the cost of fixing a random bug. So unless it's a actual massive game breaking issue, it's not going to be high priority
Now that's not to say devs and Paradox in general don't fix bugs that aren't high priority, it's just based on work load and how hard it is to fix. If they can slip it in while it's slow and it's not a gigantic can of worms to fix, they likely will. But during crunch times and times where they are working on big content, they have more important things to focus on than an obscure bug they can barely replicate and that only affects a handful of users
Also including a TLDR; helps a lot
TLDR;
- Make sure your bug is actually a bug and not user error, and is not just your preference or opinion on how something *should* work
- Make sure your bug is replicable. If it's not replicable it's almost certainly not getting fixed, full stop
- Keep your bug report concise and simple
- Include saves and screenshots
- Understand that a bug that looks simple probably isn't and can be tied to 2,000 other systems and break everything, so the devs don't want to touch it if it's not a major bug
- Understand that even a fixable bug still might not be worth it dev time cost wise as well
Also most importantly, the devs are on Summer Vacation and are only just now coming back to work. They had multiple posts about it before they left and explicitly said the last patch was the last one until they got back from summer. The devs are blessed and live in a country that actually cares about the workers, and they have a very nice work enviorment and caring boss etc, so they get well deserved breaks so they don't burn themselves out
