2- Why? English and French were technologically inferior to such empires as the Arabs, Chinese and Byzantines. Their technology didn't catch up until much later.
Scenario starts in 1470; the Byzantine ´empire´ ended in 1453. I´m sure you mean that the English and French were behind the Ottomans around then, who took over most of Arab North Africa subsequently.
3- Russia was in medieval times very chaotic, and by no means should they be represented as a single civilization straight from the beginning. Also, Russia wasn't so poor compared to western powers, the difference came only after the west started gaining riches from their colonies.
Around 1470 the Grandduchy of Moscow had transformed itself into a czardom under Ivan the Terrible. The representation on map here is fairly accurate.
4- Germany was a dominating power all the way to 16th century, and after that they still occupied a huge part of continental Europe. The French and English would have had no hope to win Germany until with the development of their armies to the same level as that of the HRE, which didn't come until later.
Actually the HRE never really played a part as a unified empire, as it was an elective empire since the High Middle Ages; in reality it was rather weak and could be easily influenced by France and Sweden - as was devastatingly shown in the 30 Years War. It was only with the rise of Austria and Prussia that German powers reemerged.
5- Chinese were ridiculously more advanced than the European barbarians. The poor strategy of isolation ruined their chances against Europeans on the world stage much later on. The Japanese science was largely influenced by the Chinese, so they should e close to what Chinese have.
Yet gunpowder was introduced to Japan by the barbarous Europeans.
6- Europeans were no real threat to the muslim world. The real threat, that ultimately was their civilization's downfall, came from the east in the form of Mongol hordes.
Who were stopped by the Mamluk dynasty of Egypt. Also, after Ghenghis Khan´s death in 1227 their Muslim conquests reverted back to Muslim rulers. (Tamerlan, who crushed the Ottomans in 1402, while claiming descent from Ghenghis, was actually a Turk rebelling against the Mongols).
7- India was as scattered as Russia back in the day, and no way they had great chances at peaceful development - the Mongols were a very real threat, which they could not overcome, followed by centuries of occupation by foreign powers.
The Delhi Sultanate was indeed around this time only one of many, a shadow of its earlier greatness. While you are correct about India being divided in 1470, the Mughal (Moghul, Mongol) empire was to dominate almost the entire subcontinent two centuries later. But despite their name these were not Mongols, but rather Turks. (The Mongols only made two raids into India in the early 13th century.)
8- The Aztecs were not technologically that far behind the Europeans. What really caused their sudden fall before the conquistadors were gunpowder, horses and small pox, out of which small pox is the most important one.
I´d say not having horse or gunpowder (let alone ocean navigation) puts the Aztecs pretty far behind. Smallpox only decimated the population after conquest. (You can´t get smallpox without contact. It´s not like the Europeans came over to the Americans, waited for the natives to die, then took over the land. Warfare and aggression was an important factor in the colonization of the Americas. Also, the fact that both Aztec and Incan empires fell within a very short time is testimony to the technological disparity. although, ofcourse, in both cases intrigue played its part as well. The Spanish couldn´t have arrived at a better - or worse - time.)