I know this was several pages back, but I just had to point out that this post shows some of the dangers of eurocentric representations in the media. Most of the timelines that you laid out are way off. China would be in the 4000 BC category, as would Egypt, Sumer and Babylon.
2000 BC would be India, if we don't count the Indus
Japan would come in the early ADs.
Lots of civilizations have rivaled the might of Europe in their day and have significant historic contributions. The Mongols are a great example of a civ that significantly impacted history and is absent from the game. They held the largest empire until european colonization really took off...yet they've been replaced by the Scythians this time. While new to the franchise, the Scythians behave exactly like a mongol civ from a functional perspective and have a far smaller role to play in the history books.
Believing 50% of human technological advancements are because of Europeans is dangerous thinking.
Actually
your timelines are way off.
China's oldest known dynasty is the
Xin dynasty that started in the 21st century BC. As you probably know too (it's in the Civilopedia), the first time all of China was unified was under Qin Shi Huang, the 3rd or 4th century BC.
Egypt is considered to have started with the
Old Kingdom, which started somewhere in the 27th century BC. This is in no way when they were at the height of their power, which was mostly in the Middle and New Kingdoms, in the 2000-1000 BC bracket where I placed them.
For Sumeria you're right, they should've been in the first bracket. I actually put them one bracket later because I realized I didn't know enough civilizations to fill the second bracket. I also confused them with the mesopotamian civiliation, which is my bad.
Babylon (that was the one ancient middle-eastern civilization I couldn't remember when writing that post, thank you) was most likely
founded around 2300 BC, and became the capital of an empire two times. First around the 18th century BC, second time in the 7th century BC, which places them firmly in either the 2000-1000 BC bracket (Hammurabi) or the 1000-1 BC bracket (Nebucchadnezzar etc). I would have placed them in the second of this, but the first would be correct too.
In 2000 BC the Indus civilization is actually
the only civilization in India, which to be honest suprised me too (I thought they were older, and put them in the 4000-3000 BC bracket accordingly). They lasted until about 1300 BC, and only after that other empires that you could see as India started appearing. So if India other than the Indus would be appear in any bracket, it would be the 1000-1 BC bracket or later.
I don't know enough about Japan by heart to say a whole lot about them, but
here is an overview of Japan's timeline, and to be honest I'm pretty sure that what is generally considered the height of Japan is late medieval, and would put them in the last bracket. But as I said, I'm no expert, and I can believe that the classical Japan was more powerful.
And I never said "50% of human technological advancements are because of Europeans". I said, that the speed of technological advancement has been forever increasing, and that for the time when it was the fastest, Europe has been dominant. You're turning around my way of thinking. I say technological advancement increases in speed anyways and Europe happens to have been dominant in the latest brackets.
