There was an excellent thread a month or two ago where we discussed the historical merits of the Civ series, but I can' t seem to find it at the moment.

The tech tree was a recurring criticism. The tree suggests a directed evolutionary perspective of history, with a path akin to some amalgamation of western societies. Modern, western civilization ils the unspoken goal/destination of a successful player. Granted, that's somewhat necessary for the game it is. An individual tech tree for each civ would be more accurate, but the game has certain expectations of accessability, and that would not help. As for specific examples? Horseback riding is an early prereq for many things, but half the world didn't have horses until 500 years ago. Without that, writing, and the wheel, the Inca could never have gotten beyond the fourth "tier" of techs. But they most certainly had those and later things. Also it means they couldn't build Macchu Picchu. Which is weird because they kinda did anyways. So again, the tree is based off of Western Eurasian development that sacrifices accuracy for a unified gameplay, NOT the actual neceasity of one tech for the next.

Well the obvious contrary example would seem to be that Central American civilizations didn't bother with the Wheel at all. The Mayans invented it but only used it for toys while the Incans never bothered to invent it in the first place.

Civilization also links the invention of gunpowder with the invention of the Musket which is hardly accurate. Gunpowder weaponry, to say nothing of actual gunpowder, dates back to at least 1326 but muskets are primarily from the sixteenth century or later. If you include match lock weapons then they could stretch back into the fifteenth century.