I like alternate history scenarios. CSA winning the Civil War or Russia not selling Alaska is plausible, but Mumbo-Jumbo tribe conquering the entire world is not alternate history, it's retardation.
Okay, but I'm not arguing for Sokoto world conquest (which is basically impossible anyway), but Sokoto becoming great power a'la modern world Japan. Did trbal antion conquer world in any of your games? Post screens, I'd gladly get a tip or two for my Sokoto game (struggling to get recognized as of 1900s, whereas as Persia I was already on par with Europeans by that point)
That's very wrong. See: basically every major Victoria 2 mod.
I only played (long enough) with Divergences of Darkness and PDM, and neither improves "historicity" that much. And if we're talking about HPM/derivatives, they just choose to introudce more event-based railroading - which is antithesis of Vic3's philosophy and should be used as a counterpount.
Take Meiji Industrialisation - you cannot necessarily say it had a "high probability" of happening if you simulated 1869-1914 several times over, so it's obviously fine if the game often features a half-modernised Japan or a completely left behind Japan, but you want your gameplay mechanics to allow AI to achieve it some of the time.
That assumes that player wants to see the same (historical) processes in every game. But what if he doesn't? I see historical purists have a majority in this thread, but maybe Paradox realized that people enjoy more diverse alt-history outcomes.
History likes butterfly effect. In your eyes, something like Japan staying not westernized might be an aberration. But player decisions and other factors might completely change the environment and make scenarios that seem stupid from OUR timeline's perspective (like Russia+France helping Austria untie Germany) plausible. Our history is full of 'implausible' outcomes and scenarios too. Miracle of House Brandenburg? Please, Russian tsar would never help their enemy, that's so bullshit! Ethiopia beating Italy at Adwa? Haha, backwards African nation wouldn't humiliate EUROPEAN GREAT POWER, would it?
I, for one, welcome this new approach. Why? Because if I want more 'historical' game... I just open up EU2 with AGCEEP mod. Or Victoria 1 with VIP. Those are still great games, and they scratch the itch. But building systems-based game is more ambitious and I can't help but cheer them in that endeavor, even if they stumble from time to time.
Changing the meaning of something to a completely opposite thing is not an evolution.
It can be. Just as various currents of conservative thoughts orbited around one idea (preserve the order!), so do various forms of liberalism (humanity must progress towards more freedom!). Depending on circumstances, environment and definitions, those idas can be achievable by different means. If your country is a post-colonial American state that never had a king, you probably won't be ultramontane royalist 'conservative'. If you percieve that your country has a free speech and capitalist system, being 'classical liberal' kinda doesn't advance the cause. As I said, it's all about the goal, not means.