(If it is already a landmark that I overlooked, plz delete this topic.)
Suppose you build your wonder on the right side of the map while all your landmarks on the left. Next enemy did a surprise attack on your left side aiming for your landmarks. Imagine your landmarks got all cleaned up because of your defending your wonder. I think it’s contradictory in some sense. Or it can be a feature, too.
So do you think having a wonder should count as a landmark?
0 voters
Although the example is very good, I still prefer the spectacle building as an additional additional victory option rather than a unit that changes the strategy. Keeping a landmark building can prevent you from losing, and having a spectacle building can let you after a period of time. To win, if the wonder building can be used as a landmark building at the same time, then you have a building that will not let you lose and at the same time allow you to win after a period of time, and the two characteristics are mixed together. I personally think The gaming experience causes inappropriate effects.
In addition, the wonder building should be a symbol of the prosperity of a country. If all your landmarks are lost but you still rely on the wonder building to win, then it feels very strange, as if the wonder building is the ultimate doomsday weapon that counts down, not Because the prosperity of your civilization will eventually result in the respect and submission of the enemy.
If someone builds a wonder and hardcore turtles though, it can become impossible to win. Being able to destroy the other landmarks to save yourself can prevent that, although you could really make an argument both ways.