So I've been using this for awhile, now (since you first released it, I'm pretty sure) and I've been loving it. It feels like a very good way to handle wonders. From my completely subjective PoV:
- The terrain requirements do a fantastic job of preventing excessive wonder-whoring (from players and AI both) even though the mod adds a ton of them.
- The AI seems to do a reasonably good job of prioritizing them appropriately.
- There's a ton of variety that's just plain fun. My wife refuses to play anything but Progress anymore because she HAS TO HAVE the Itsukushima Shrine.
- I love things like Mont St. Michel enabling previously 'eeeeeh' cities to shine.
All that being said, I have started to feel a little more iffy about some of the earliest wonders, Stonehenge in particular. Stonehenge is placed and prioritized such that unless you're America or
maybe Egypt, you can't even think about getting it if you settle your capital on a hill (which I know I do 90% of the time and I'm pretty confident is the most common 'deciding factor' for the capital). I'm really not even sure this is a
bad thing necessarily; Stonehenge is important enough that deciding your settling spot based on it is not unreasonable and makes for a good 'hard choice.' But... Stonehenge is important enough that I also wonder how much that throws off the balance of things.
EDIT: Also bugs me that both Pyramids and Stonehenge, which are both very good/important wonders that are available very close together and on the same tech path, require 'flat' terrain. Feels like it goes a bit against the 'anti-whoring' point I mentioned earlier.
Like I said, I'm not firmly enough one way or the other. Just some food for thought for people smarter than myself.