Breaking treaties should have more severe consequences

[kolpo]

I think that it was too easy in civ3 to break treaties. They should again have a reputation model like civ2 and when your reputation becomes too low should you from then on have the "rogue state" title. The monent a rogue state attacks anyone would then the entire world declare war against the rogue state. Non-rogue states would also be completely unwilling to sing any treaties with rogue states and be unwilling to sell millitary resources(like uranium) to rogue states(selling millitary resources to rogue states should lower your reputation).

Normal nations would also be able to do unprovoked attacks againsts rogue states without losing much reputation.

The population of a rogue state should also be more willing to revolt againsts it's leader(Sadam faced many revolts). As long as there are no gigantic penalities for breaking treaties do they mean nothing.

[Solver]

Overall, a good idea. Treaties should be serious, and you should think twice before breaking - or signing them. Then again, not to a ridicilous extent. In Civ3, if you violated a RoP in the Ancient age, you'd never get another one. But if you, say, break a peace treaty before it expires, the other nations should lower their regard towards you. Mainly, it should be economic penalties. In the real world, everyone wouldn't attack a big country for breaking treaties. Like, Russia wouldn't be attacked because of that. So if you're big, you shouldn't perhaps be attacked, but you should suffer trade penalties. Here's hoping that trade in Civ4 is crucial and embargoes can really hurt.