Philosophy has seemed problematic from the start. The new conception of philosophy as a religion/science dual-category civ card does seem to consider some of philosophy's most fundamental elements as a true historical representation, though most of philosophy's major contributions (a la Thales ~ Aristotle, etc.) were of a political nature, and thus civic-related, albeit not "sponsored" thereby. The purpose, it seems, of philosophy originally being categorized as a civic, is that it requires an advanced civilized state to develop - free thought requires a complex society that allows leisure time apart from mere subsistence living. Hence, philosophy is a civic to symbolize its mark as the pinnacle of a flourishing society and government. However, this may simply mean that it should require certain civic prerequisites (i.e. later government types which allow greater individual liberty, such as democracy or republic).
Considering philosophy a science does seem problematic, though; for, although philosophy may fit into that category to the extent that it is appropriately dubbed the "father" of all sciences, that very fact creates a dilemma - it is among the most expensive cards in the game (and rightly so, for it requires an advanced civilization to "sponsor" or allow philosophy to develop), while other sciences, such as astronomy and (advanced) mathematics (which should contribute to military - i.e. catapults!) surely required the free thought of philosophers to produce any science whatever. Historically, this is accurate. While during this period in history, great thinkers such as Aristotle still considered the heavenly bodies as no more than a mere shell about the Earth (which was the center of the universe), thus precluding any such advance as "astronomy" before advanced philosophic thought, I realize that the game would never fully pan out, as astronomy would require philosophy, the latter of which cannot be cheaper for this purpose, since philosophy, historically, certainly did require such a high state of societal organization as to justify its appearance late in the game (of Advanced Civ).
This presents the further problem that rhetoric and politics (the latter of which I would recommend be called "political science") truly did not emerge until philosophers such as Thrasymachus (a sophist, who practiced and taught rhetoric for a living around the time of Socrates) and Aristotle began discussing the elements of rhetoric, and writing treatises on the fundamental predictions and components of political institutions. Before this (philosophy), the consequent functions of rhetoric and "politics" cannot be truly said to have viably existed. Thus, we have a problem. I don't propose the answers, I only here expose some facets to be considered, so as to be incorporated into the game, to more accurately represent reality, and to balance the game more fairly, possibly as it should have been already.

K J K Dalamant