hé hé, Florence is in
Italian cities are considered as different from Roman Empire.
So maybe hanseatic league (Lubeck, Novgorod,...) cities too?
Ooh, that would be cool. I like medieval cities that defended their privileges from the Kingdoms and Principalities that surrounded them because they provide a bit of variety from Ancient city-states while being a bit more realistic than the modern ones. Ideally, there should be a mix of all three (Ancient being Ur or Carthage, Medieval being places like Florence, and modern being likely capitals of nations that wouldn't be in the game otherwise).
i see a winner grin in your face
ok, then i would comment that Italia should be a civilization in the game, if roman empire is considered much different.
Italia is a very influential country.
While I think Italy was influential, Italy is also associated with its reputation post-unification (which hasn't been stellar). During its heydey, it wasn't close to unified (I realize that Greece fits under the same category, but if you allow the Hellenistic Empire of Alexander and the domination afterwards, it had a bit more unity that Italy had during its cultural highpoint).
@Ribannah;
maybe they might have put this city-state issue also to get rid of some ancient civs as well.
greece, sumeria and babylon was small empires most of the time. alex empire was exceptional however, but he was the leader of macedonia and it is not a common idea to consider him as greek. Most historicians don't consider him greek.
Babylon didn't have a small empire (at least, not the Chaldean Neo-Babylonian Empire). It was smaller than the Assyrian Empire, but still significant. Basically, there was the Assyrian Empire, the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the Persian Empire, and Alexander's Empire. They all basically build on each other (I mean that both in territory and administration). The point is the trend in mesopotamia was for unification. The Sumerians had city states, but, ever since Sargon created an empire from Akkad, the impetus was on others to top it.
Greece did have a stronger history of city states (actually Poleis, some weren't even cities, so to call them City-States would be erroneous). But Hellenistic culture was such a strong influence over the Mediterranean that it would be a shame to limit them to a minor non-playable faction (or factions).
Damascus a city of arab civ (Syria capitol)
Doesn't Damascus predate the Arab conquest significantly?
For Middle Eastern city states, Tyre, Ur, Elam (if not a Persian city), Palmyra, and Akkad are all good cities. Babylon would be a good one depending on the time period. Ashur and Nineveh, unfortunately, wouldn't get represented any other way, but weren't really City-states (Ashur was in its early history, but their closer to capitals of Kingdoms and Empires than City-States). Damascus isn't a bad one because it has a long history (going into Medieval times). But it's also an important Arab city, so it'll probably get stuck under there (basically, if it can be put under a playable civ, it's better than an NPC city-state).
Calling it dirt may start a flamewar with devote Catholics, btw. We don't call Mecca a stranded dingy desert do we? We don't call Jerusalem a decaying city surrounded by an inhospitable sea of desert, refugees, and war, do we? 
Vatican City could play a role, should religion ever return in an expansion(my bet is yes), as the big 'crusade' launcher.
