I meant a legitimate purpose, not a purpose you could serve by replacing the mechanic with "real time strategy instead of turn-based", "no workers", "hard limit to 3 cities per civ", "technology doesn't matter", and so on. Those all push players out of comfort zones too, but that doesn't make them good. It also doesn't make this particular mechanic good. You also failed to answer my question: from a strategy standpoint, how does this change add to meaningful choices made across the game? At least when wonders are contested, you have to make some degree of risk/reward evaluation with incomplete information. We don't have strong evidence either way, but what evidence we do have (previous civ titles) suggests this assumption to be mistaken. Aside technology or resources, what requirements? Requirements aren't made equally, some would actually force you to use strategy. Spawning near desert does not use strategy. Doesn't address my point at all, skipping. "You might get a freebie wonder. This could be interesting" --> what is this doing to make the game better? Earlier in this thread I posed a question: As I have now been quoted multiple times without answering this question, let me rephrase it: What meaningful decisions do you anticipate terrain restrictions on wonders to add, and how do they weight against the urgency and planning required to secure wonders without the restriction?