And no one is right or wrong. Trying to decide whether Game Mechanic A or Game Mechanic B is more "historical" is like trying to decide whether Idea A or Idea B is "heavier." Attempting to let "historical plausibility" determine game mechanics (or the other way around, for that matter) is at best an unproductive framework for discussion, and at worst pure nonsense, since weight is not an intrinsic property of ideas, and it depends entirely how you subjectively choose to translate "weight" (historical plausibility) to ideas (mechanics).
I think you take a far too literal interpretation of the word "historical" for a context like discussing EU4. Obviously, the whole point of the game is to play out an alternate history. Simply plodding through a narrative of the events exactly as they happened wouldn't even be a 'game.' It would be a book. A game involves decisions with a chance for reward and risk of 'loss' or punishment.
Reward in EU4 is how you define it yourself, but obviously what we all seem to share is an interest in developing a geopolitically potent nation. That might mean WC for some guys, insane trade power for others, or it might even mean roleplaying closely how a nation actually evolved but with certain alternate paths.
EU4 is like a kit for painting your own "alternate historical mural."
The key to the "historical" part is that the basic elements you are provided with should minimally contradict history. This does not mean that the final product the player finishes when he/she has completed "painting" their mural must be a perfect mirror of history, not that it even should be close. That is not the point whatsoever and it stuns me that people actually seem to imply that that is the point. If somebody manages to achieve a WC that is perfectly fine IMO, and doesn't breach the spirit of the game as a historical alternate history composition set. The key is: do any of the elements that are provided in the set significantly contradict history and do those elements somehow contribute to ahistorical outcomes?
Game dynamics that facilitate WC are relatively ahistorical as WC didn't happen, not even close. Game dynamics that constrain WC are relatively 'historical' (even if their abstract implementation in game might rub the fur the wrong way). At least when the player gets to a certain massive size you don't have Zeus throwing thunderbolts down from Olympus to destroy the arrogant human player's empire! THAT would be even more ahistorical (and annoying) that Coalitions and AE.
All this to say: to remain true to the spirit of the series, I sense that the developers realized they needed game elements that made WC more difficult, and in particular increasingly more difficult the closer one gets to total global domination. I think they've done a pretty good job of coming up with a better system than in EU3 and while I don't consider it to be "historical" it is relatively less ahistorical than any other alternative mechanism for constraining ultra-expansion, and certainly less ahistorical than a game like Civ where global domination is commonplace.
.png){kind=avatar}
