• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hello everyone! Common Sense and 1.12 have been released, and our expansion sales continue to shatter previous records! With the expansion and patch now out, we're going to shift into a different gear with our dev diaries for a while, talking about other things than upcoming features. Some ideas we've had is to discuss our design process, how we handle feedback from fans, and reflections on different parts of the game and where we want to see them go in the future.

Today, however, we're busy working on a hotfix for 1.12, so I thought I'd tell you about that, and also a bit about why there will always be bugs on release of a new expansion.

Let's deal with the hotfix first. From what we've seen, 1.12 has been a smooth launch for the majority of users, with a low bug count in new features, but there were some serious technical issues on certain hardware setups.

The hotfix is expected to be released today or tomorrow, and at present contains fixes for the following issues:

Hotfix 1.12.1 (AS OF WRITING OF THIS POST, THIS IS NOT YET OUT)
- Fixed a bug where the AI would declare suicidal wars due to incorrectly calculating defensive call acceptance
- Spain can no longer form Andalusia and vice versa (preventing endless nation forming loop for prestige)
- Forts can no longer take control of other provinces with forts (capital, mothballed or otherwise)
- Fixed a bug where the AI would accept concede defeat as the only concession even when they had 100% warscore.
- Fixed a bug where single player games started with the 'Only host can save' setting would be unable to be loaded.
- Fixed a bug where some AIs would constantly mothball and unmothball forts (this could cause serious performance hit on lower end machines as well)
- Fixed a bug where the AI would continously march back and forth between two provinces in a fort's ZoC
- Fixed exploit where you could give away ally's provinces even if not occupied in coalition war.
- Fixed a bug where rebels would spawn at very low morale when there were hostile units in their spawn province.
- Fixed an issue with steam workshop removing supported_version from .mod files
- Fixed an issue where .mod files would be printed with garbled data, resulting in CTD on launch
- Fixed an exploit where you could give away the provinces of your war allies even if they were not occupied (you should only be able to give away your own unoccupied provinces)
- Unit movement lock can no longer be bypassed by issuing another move order.
- Fixed artillery models for several different unit packs to have the correct infantry model accompanying it.
- Lowered cost of diplomatic annexation from 10 to 8 dip points per development (since there's more ways to decrease adm cost)
- Autonomy from diploannexation is now 60 (down from 75)
- Fixes issues using the MacBook trackpad when interacting with the map on OSX.
- Fixed a CTD in AI province conquest weight calculation
- Fixed a CTD related to rebels in uncolonized provinces
- Game no longer crashes when forcing nations with subjects to revoke claims.
- Save games saved in 1.12 no longer cause CTDs in 1.11 (only applies to saves made after this hotfix is applied)
- The '+' key should now increase game speed correctly on US/UK keyboards.
- Fixed issue where foreign Separatists defecting to your country caused your country to act as if it was just released.

Note that we are only considering important fixes and tweaks for hotfixes, so if you have a bug you think should be hotfixed, take a moment and ask yourself whether or not it can wait until the larger bugfixing patch that we'll be releasing later in June.


Why do patches always have bugs?
This is a question we get a lot, along with 'Do you even test your games?', and 'Do you even play your own games?'. The answer is, yes, we play our own games, and yes, we test our games. Loosely calculated, about 2400 man-hours of QA has gone into Common Sense, and before a launch every feature is tested thoroughly. Over the course of the development of 1.12 and Common Sense, approximately 1200 bugs have been fixed by the team.

So why, then, do bugs still get into the release? There are two sides to this, and the first one is math.

As of Tuesday night, we had around 20000 concurrent players. If we assume that those 20000 people each play 2 hours that night, that is 40000 hours of play. In order to have equivalent QA test hours to only 2 hours of play on a release night, we would need a team of 30 full-time QA. Scenarios that only happen once every 10000 games will realistically never happen for our QA, and when you factor in that those 20000 players have 20000 different hardware setups... you can begin to see why things like the game not launching on a single core computer (we do not have a single core computer in QA because they haven't been making them for over half a decade) or the engine upgrade breaking mac trackpads (we did not have a mac trackpad in QA, we now do and will use to test future versions) happen.

That's one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is priority.

It's always our ambition to release new expansions without bugs in the new features, and for this reason we consider newly introduced bugs higher priority than older ones. We haven't always done a great job of this in the past, but 1.12/Common Sense had a much lower bug count in new features than previous expansions. There were however, a couple immediately apparent issues, particularly the fact that movement locking did not work at all. You might reasonably ask yourself how such a thing slipped through QA. The answer: It didn't.

The movement locking bug was introduced in the very last build we made for release, as a result of fixing another bug where ZoCs would create weird movement paths. It was only found after the build was done and smoke tested (smoke testing is basically a thorough 'does the game actually run' test that we do on anything we release to the public). Given that we had no other serious known issues at the time, I made the call that the issue was not serious enough to warrant spending another half a day making a new build and testing that build. QA found the issue, I chose not to fix it because the time spent making a new build could be better spent working on our back log of older bugs, and I figured that we'd have to make a hotfix anyway due to the risk for technical issues appearing with the engine upgrade.

The simple fact of it is that we are probably never going to have a launch that doesn't introduce at least one or two serious technical issues, because we do not, and cannot test the game on the thousands and thousands of different hardware configurations that will be playing the game the moment we set the patch live. The measure of a successful launch, in my book, is not that there are no bugs, but rather that there are no serious bugs which could reasonably have been caught by our internal testing.

Do I expect this explanation to change much? Not really, because I think people like easy explanations, and 'Paradox does not even test their expansions' is a much easier explanation than 'In a complex piece of software you will always have some bugs no matter how much QA you do', 'Fixing bugs can introduce new bugs' and 'Not all bugs are worth grinding development to a halt in order to fix'.

Nonetheless, for those who wish to know, there it is.
 
Last edited:
Even though they're weren't owned by an Italian, Vaud and Wallis still left the Empire my game (one was owned by the swiss, other a HRE member Burgundy). I assume that's because they start out as part of Savoy, but with their Swiss culture they shouldn't leave (and certainly not if part of a non-Italian HRE state).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
No, Austria was not a Kingdom.
But grand pricipality of Moscow is king-ranked at common sense. Even Koln, Trier, Mainz, and that Riga are king-ranked.

Will austria stay duchy forever? Austria isn't even elector, so it cannot upgrade rank with 300 dev. Or I missed something?


+ Leaving HRE without any practical interest seems weird. HRE princes are positive for early imperial reforms as imperial integrity is gone and early reforms grant more bonuses. Like this, will you add some advantage for leaving HRE and make it seems more reasonable?
 
Wow, thanks for the insight into how Paradox works. Your DLC model is actually one of the reason why I love Paradox games so much; since you'll continue making them as long as there's an interest in the game, there's always room for improvements, overhauls and bugfixes down the road. Speaking of which, is fixing the Orthodox events MTTH (or whatever has greatly reduced their frequency) on the to do for the patch?
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Wait do you not get Empire rank when you become Emperor? I mean... it's kind of in the name.

You're an Emperor, but your country is not an Empire because you are Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, not Emperor of Austria etc
 
  • 15
  • 1
Reactions:
No, Austria was not a Kingdom.

Fair enough, but if an elector can become a kingdom (and the Emperor was able to raise a duchy to a kingdom), then certainly the emperor should be ranked higher than a duchy, no? Also, according to Peter H. Wilson's Thirty Years' War: Europe's Tragedy, Ferdinand II (I believe) was planning to raise Austria to a kingdom, but dropped it out of consideration for his brothers, who were Archdukes. The Habsburgs also controlled Bohemia and were thus kings of Bohemia but still prefered using the Emperor or Archduke titles. Furthermore, Francis raised Austria to an empire outside of being the Holy Roman Emperor in 1804 (before the HRE was dissolved, not after), so it was clearly in his power to do so. I mean, if there's a historic precedent that's already been set, then that shouldn't be out of the question, right?

So I'd suggest a few options: 1. Raise Archduchies to Kingdom status. 2. Allow the Holy Roman Emperor to hold Emperor status for as long as he's the Holy Roman Emperor. 3. If a duchy puts a state with a higher rank in a PU, it automatically gets the same rank (I'm not sure if this is in conflict with the current mechanics, if for example an emperor ranked state gets higher liberty desire towards a kingdom or a duchy. If that's the case, discard this option entirely).
 
You're an Emperor, but your country is not an Empire because you are Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, not Emperor of Austria etc

Would be interesting if the Rank travels with the title, would make becoming emperor desirable even if you are planning to switch religions.
 
Yes, this is WAD. We wanted diploannexation costs to be about on par with coring costs in terms of points, it was lowered because they were on average higher.

Ah, that I don't object - it does make an interesting trade-off. Before if you can you would always diplo annex. But why not make coring cost 9 per development and diplo annexation 7, or even lower? I don't see any reasons why costs should be so much higher. They don't promote tall playstyle either. Currently Muscovy has to spend about 820 points on coring Novgorod. I have a suspicion that under such circumstances it would never become a power it used to be.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
...is fixing the Orthodox events MTTH (or whatever has greatly reduced their frequency) on the to do for the patch?
I think it is tied to the number in the on_actions file. And that number was increased from 25 to 100, in 1.12. So, clearly they implemented some change, though I don't recall seeing it in the patch notes. Can't recall if that matches the old number.
 
Compared with past releases I think this was an improvement in terms of the number of bugs. The suicidal wars probably should and could have been caught by any one tester if they were actually playing a game and paying attention, but the hotfix will come soon so no big deal. I still think a full or semi public beta test would be a good idea in the future.
 
Yes, this is WAD. We wanted diploannexation costs to be about on par with coring costs in terms of points, it was lowered because they were on average higher.

I'm happy with the increased costs for coring & diploannexing, but was wondering if you've thought of applying a minor discount for provinces that match your accepted culture/culture group? Say 10% / 5% respectively.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
"- Fixed a bug where the AI would declare suicidal wars due to incorrectly calculating defensive call acceptance
- Fixed a bug where the AI would continously march back and forth between two provinces in a fort's ZoC"

Thank you Wiz. This fixes my most important issues.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Ah, that I don't object - it does make an interesting trade-off. Before if you can you would always diplo annex. But why not make coring cost 9 per development and diplo annexation 7, or even lower? I don't see any reasons why costs should be so much higher. They don't promote tall playstyle either. Currently Muscovy has to spend about 820 points on coring Novgorod. I have a suspicion that under such circumstances it would never become a power it used to be.
Indeed they promote to play taller, among other things.

Rather than spending your ADM or DIP point in coring or diploannexing, you spend them in development or buildings. I guess PDX did the maths on costs / benefits and got the current expansion cost numbers.

I don't like it and will never like it, though.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Note that we are only considering important fixes and tweaks for hotfixes, so if you have a bug you think should be hotfixed, take a moment and ask yourself whether or not it can wait until the larger bugfixing patch that we'll be releasing later in June.

What about frozen/stuck AI raised armies? I didn't see it part of your post but it makes it ridiculously easy to conquer a country when they don't fight back. Reminds me of the bug from Art of War.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/are-ai-armies-broken-again.861051/
Here's a summary from my thread, basically what I've noticed and others is the AI trying to raise/merge a army onto a province that has enemy troops. But because of your patch in 1.12 that was suppose to fix "- Fixed an issue where AI splinter armies would suicide into much larger enemy stacks" It now prevents them from moving at all even months-years later until they get destroyed.
 
  • 1
Reactions: