That should never happen!
But I do understand the concern.
I think they recently revived a thread ( The REAL problem of the variant civs) about variant issues, and here I was precisely saying that in the last DLC the devs acknowledged that “they didn’t make the first four versions with enough historical depth”, and that’s precisely why the new variants (Lancaster, Templars) had that.
So at least in the future, I also hope they make more historical variants, “if it warrants it” and not just for the sake of fill.
I think there are some civs that are really good candidates for variants at historical context:
- Timurids (Mongol Variant)
- Conquistadors (Spanish or Castilian Variant)
- Aragon (Spanish Variant)
- Ming Dynasty (Chinese Variant)
Well, the Sultanate of Rum was practically the predecessor from which the Ottomans emerged, so it would be more of a variant of them than Byzantine. That said, I didn’t find many unique units or landmarks that would make an interesting variant, and since it predates them, wouldn’t the term “Ancestor Civ” be better? Although I think there are better options.
And for those who don’t know what the Latin Empire was:
Latin Empire (1204-1261):
It was a kingdom formed by Crusaders who seized and invaded the Byzantine Empire, instead of going to the Holy Land. It was a temporary kingdom, which was later annihilated and returned to the control of the Byzantine Empire under the Palaeologan dynasty.
In other words, they should never be a Byzantine variant. The Latin Empire was to the Byzantines what the Mongols were to the Chinese, or the Mongols to the Russians, or the Timurids to the Persians.