@Genava55 the point obviously is, as noted before, how something looks when it's freshly built. I mentioned the Colossus because it's a Wonder that came to mind that changed quite fast, thus the distinction between earthquakes and grass is quite irrelevant considering what the actual point is. And no, it was not "completely destroyed", it remained in the ground for centuries, still in its way a wonder, in words of Pliny the Elder: "even as it lies, it excites our wonder and admiration". But if earthquakes distract you so much, then another example more aligned to the grass issue: should the Statue of Liberty (assuming a game reaching the modern age) be built with the green patina already on it? Might look familiar, but it's inaccurate, which has been the point all along. Now, another issue is, is the Wonder some generic kurgan? Because yes, some had pebbles, others not, so maybe it should be decided first which kurgan in particular should be represented (the largest?), and if it never had pebbles to begin with then there's not much discussion to be had, I think. Personally I might have gone for the mausoleum of Skilurus (which seems more unique).

Yeah when i read up on them i sometimes get confused when they refer to them as "Achaemenids"  Easy fix on CWA I think, and Delenda if u have them there?

Yeah, let's have a gravel surface one for the Wonder, since it's built by the player and is supposedly "maintained" by their people. And then we have a grass covered one for a map "ruins" object. 

Seems to work:  

This is an absurd comparison and you know it. On one hand, the Colossus of Rhodes fell due to an earthquake, and the Rhodians refused to rebuild it because of an oracle. On the other hand, the overgrowth of a kurgan with grass is a natural process that occurs in all cases if the monument is not maintained several times a year. In your example, the Colossus of Rhodes is completely destroyed. In the case of the kurgan modeled with grass covering it, it is still functional. We are comparing a natural disaster with an ordinary process. Furthermore a process that was difficult to stop.  A kurgan is not something similar to a Greek monument. First of all, this stone covering is not found on all kurgans. Multiple kurgans are simply covered with clumps of earth. One should not assume that it was standard practice to cover a kurgan with a stone shell. In fact, this is most common in certain regions. But even when vegetation had overgrown the gravel surface, this was a common occurrence in the Scythian landscape. Most of the kurgan mounds still standing were in this condition.  In any case, I’m not opposed to using a gravel surface. I also think it will look better. Once again, I’m criticizing a specific line of reasoning.