I understand your viewpoint Txurce, I think this is a case of gameplay vs realism but I think it's really possible to have both. I also think that it is valid to argue about these changes here(although Thal is allowed to disagree and tell us to move the discussion elsewhere) as rather than the other threads in which people hurl their opinions at eachother, here we can actually discuss what can be changed and why.
My objection to this change has much less to do with exploits than it does with a blanket removal of what should be a very important choice. I do believe that although we want to stop people from saving up all SP's full stop, forcing them to use them on that turn is overkill. It removes the choice of when to time your SP, especially early on when you just plain won't yet know which of the trees you want to take. In terms of realism, yes absolutely hoarding 5 SP's and spending them at once makes no sense. But surely just delaying 1 for 10-15 turns is reasonable both from a gameplay and realism perspective!
Here I just plain disagree, it seems that our definitions of "gaming" are quite different. For me, this purely means exploiting a mechanic not as intended (i.e saving up instant heals) to create an overpowered, unrealtistic tactic. I really don't see how waiting until your next battle to decide whether you want a bonus on rough or flat terrain is an exploit. Instead, I feel it adds an extra layer of strategy to warfare which ultimately makes the game more fun.
For me, CiV boils down to a series of decisions, the fun is had in seeing the effects and repercussions of these decisions. The more of these that you take away in the name of getting rid of exploits or realism, the less fun the game becomes for me. I think that a balance can be found and this is much better than fluctuating between extremes as we are currently.