Consider this: Byzantium is nothing super special in terms of the civ itself. Fairly non memorable in terms of uniques and UHVs. Likewise, Rome, which I definitely think is one of the more important civs in world history, especially in Europe, has a UHV that is rather boring. Specifically the one related to infrastructure; there's little reason to build amphitheatres usually unless you have nothing else to build, and Rome normally can support its own health without aqueducts. I dislike this UHV because it requires a pretty strict play style most of the time without much room for error. The tech one is also sort of meh but it should be okay. One UHV in the game I REALLY like is the Carthage one requiring a movement of the capital. I think that this could solve the problem of having two Rome civs when in history the Western Roman Empire resembled a collapse-to-core rather than a continuation of a civilization, in my opinion. What I propose is replacing one of Rome's UHVs with a similar one requiring the Romans to move their capital to Constantinople and to control both Christian holy shrines by a certain year. This would solve a couple of problems, mostly no more boring Byzantium, no more bad Rome UHV, Constantinople guaranteed to be the center of the West (which the Romans would morph into after a few hundred years), and a more realistic portrayal of the shift from West to East. The Roman core could move from Italy to Anatolia during the shift period. Alternatively, Byzantium could be a Greek rebirth. I just really dislike Byzantium as its own Civ. You could fill its slot with so much cooler stuff! Khazars, Philippines, Huns... I mean at least give us a Byzantine rebirth as Yugoslavia or something.