I found the value for not increasing monetary costs for advisers.
I also thought about that combination of 200-250x increase, -2 points, and 0-1 tech levels for Aztecs and Africa.
When I recalculated it, I found Aztecs should have +2, or perhaps +3, points and they would still be at the same situation like they were. Africa should have +1 point. I thought about +3 for Aztecs, and +2 for Africa, but Ebola isn't a trifling matter. (And they would get theirs chance for westernization, when EU countries will not gobble them up.)
Well to show you some calculations:
The worst EU countries can do at tech is 600/3, 0 admin regency council. This is still 200 months. At best they can do 600/(8+3) which is 55 months.
The worst case for Aztecs is they would go at tech level 2.88, lets make it 3. When they would have repeatedly skill 0 rulers. When they would move theirs butt and try to innovate, the average case is 8 levels.
Subsaharan Africa gets worst case. Ruler 0 and dumb thus no money for adviser. 1 point. 4.6 lets make it 5.
And when they would move theirs but, they are from Africa so they will not. 11 level. Actually assuming they wouldn't be able to hire level 2 adviser because of no gold mines, they would get level 8.
Now of course both Aztecs and Inca empires were bit more efficient in STATE governance than African tribes, and Inca, or Maya, have much less gold mines than Aztecs, so it's bit strange behavior.
Well I tried to find a value how to increase leader stats with bias upwards, to simulate higher dependency on leader qualities in Aztecs cultures than in EU, every retard can be the governing person. Thus simulate a situation where a low grade leader can be much worse situation for Aztecs than for EU, but so far no success. It looks like it's in binary the same as lucky countries bonuses.