Freeing Serfs in Russia

That's really interesting, thanks Marshal. I haven't used AI yet for games research as i don't "trust" it to be reliable/accurate...though I tend to be very "conservative" when it comes to research. I was very late in trusting anything that was said on Wikipedia as being anything like accurate

What could be fun would be to see what it came up with on some of the alternative history/fantasy elements of the game, e.g.
A Stuart Restoration in the British Isles
The emergence of a viable Russian Alaska
18th C Chinese exploration/expansion towards the Americas and/or Africa


If I get bored this weekend, might give it a try

Jason2 wrote:That's really interesting, thanks Marshal.  I haven't used AI yet for games research as i don't "trust" it to be reliable/accurate...though I tend to be very "conservative" when it comes to research. I was very late in trusting anything that was said on Wikipedia as being anything like accurate

What could be fun would be to see what it came up with on some of the alternative history/fantasy elements of the game, e.g.
A Stuart Restoration in the British Isles
The emergence of a viable Russian Alaska
18th C Chinese exploration/expansion towards the Americas and/or Africa


If I get bored this weekend, might give it a try

Well,

I believe you were right on wikipedia!

Marshal Bombast wrote:Hi all, would you use AI in your game research?

This is interesting, but the short answer from me is ... no.  

Jason2 wrote:That's really interesting, thanks Marshal. I haven't used AI yet for games research as I don't "trust" it to be reliable/accurate...though I tend to be very "conservative" when it comes to research. I was very late in trusting anything that was said on Wikipedia as being anything like accurate  

I tend to agree with Jason2, but perhaps for different reasons.  It goes beyond reliability/accuracy.  What AI cannot do (and will probably never be able to do) is to place the question in context, context of both why you are asking it and what you hope to achieve by implementing its results.

The question "What were the short term economic effects of the ending of serfdom in Russia?" is a good one to ask - not overly complicated and almost a kind of essay-style question which I would imagine there is quite a bit of research available electronically for AI to sift through.  But, even with a simple question like this, the result is not that useful when drilled down.

The short term economic effects relative to which other scenarios: (1) do nothing; (2) watch the Russian economy evolve naturally as all economies do?

The changes it notes are also loaded with assumptions of what constitutes a more efficient agricultural sector - if measured in terms of profits for farmers, that may be a completely different answer compared to increased grain production; or again in terms of grain security for the whole of Russia.  Many of these changes could have happened anyway through mechanisation or other agricultural improvements so are not necessarily dependent upon abolition of serfdom.  What AI always struggles with is to distinguish between correlation and causation (as do people generally).  I'm sure Jason2 will correct me with his academic/museum background, but with social sciences new understanding often comes precisely when previous assumptions or consensus about correlation/causation is re-evaluated.  If 5000 academic papers accept one view and 50 academic papers favour another, how does AI decide which has greater weight since they will generally be written over a longer timescale - the more modern research may be correct or it may be serving a particular agenda with more modern assumptions of what constitutes efficiency or models of acceptable human behaviour.

One more thing the AI failed to pick up on is the reason why nations like France and Russia favoured small scale farming - namely because farm labourers were ideal conscripts for their large armies.  Once mechanisation came, the fitness of recruits dropped considerably.  Fine if Russia doesn't want a large army, but a fairly important consideration in Napoleonic times.  The phrase "Overall, the ending of serfdom had a positive impact on the Russian economy in the long term" was particularly dodgy.

The Bing response did have a few more numbers and references in it, but I disliked that even more.  Quoting percentages and references to 'GDP' when even today there are several ways of measuring GDP which economists disagree about (or even whether GDP as a measure is useful).  Trying to then apply that historically is really misleading.

And these are just top of the head observations.  I'd hate to think of what it would come up with if asked a more open ended question such as Jason2's Stuart Restoration idea.

Marshal Bombast wrote:I'd love to know your thoughts and what was or would be your first game related research question?

So although I'm glad you tried it and posted this, I wouldn't use AI.

Even if the answers were really useful, I still wouldn't use it because the whole point of a game like LGDR is that it is played against other human beings (or at least those who pretend to be).  They may make some strange decisions sometimes and orders not quite go to plan, but in the battle between human intelligence and artificial intelligence, I would always back the human, especially if that human is me!

I think the problem with saying fact 1) Serfs are set free in Russia fact 2) Russian grain production increases by 25% in the ten years after 1861 and drawing the conclusion that freeing Serfs or any other form of unfree labour such a slaves in the Roman Empire or in the American colonies in any other year will automatically lead to a 25% increase in grain and other agricultural production over the next ten years without consideration of all the other factors which may have played a part in the increase in Russian grain and production and exports.

This is a bit like sayimg fact 1) 1865 Slaves set free in the USA State of Georgia fact 2) Cotton production and exports in 1865- 1875 is less than it was  between 1850 to 1860 meaning that the freeing of "unfree" labour is bad for Agriculture production.  Without taking into account other factors like loss of other workers in civil war and Sherman marching through Georgia ripping up all the railways and burning Atlanta etc.

Other factors in the case of C19 Russian Empire (The period of Scabble) which may have helped this increase in grain production and exports other than the terms and conditions of its labour force include:

a) Growth in Russian population/labour supply in common with other areas improved treatment for Small pox and other developments caused a massive increase in the whole Worlds population in the C19 which not only icreased the supply of labour but increased demand for grain.....no point in growing extra if you do not have a market for it.

b) Growth in amount of land which can be cultivated in the Russian Empire.  In the C19 the Russian Empire expanded hugely into Central Asia and other areas which not only included a lot of land under production in the Khanates to be added to Russian figures but added a lot of unused but potentially very fertile land to the Russian land bank for possible future expansion.

c) As well as increased labour and land supply (gosh sound really Marxist here) other factors which would have helped the growth of Russian agriculture  and exports in the C19 you also have to include the development of newer higher yielding crops, new farm machinery and the development of railways, telegraphs, steam ships, new ports and all the things which allowed Russian farmers to not only grow more per acre but get their products to market.

Bit like the American mid West no real economic point in having tens of thousands of extra Cattle on the range before the rail heads were built to move them.  Equally no point in growing tens of thousands of tons of extra grain on new land in Siberia before you can move it too the growing cities and ports.  An ability which existed in 1860 but not 1700.

In pure ecomomic terms freedom for Serfs to move around in (final in 1860's but many freed earlier) worked for the Russian agriculture sector in the 1860's because in combination with other factors like railways and political control it allowed huge amounts of labour to move from working (or being under-employed) on poor Northern soil to working on more fertile black earth soils ls of the Ukraine and to open up new lands in the far East and central Asia.

If in Glori the Czar decides to free all the Serfs early (say 1700) before railways, new crops, etc etc the greater mobility of labour may indeed help increase Agricultural and other production.  But probably more for the neighbours as freed Russian Serfs take advantage of their freedom to bugger off to warmer climes and richer soils which are in 1700 in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Ottoman Empire.  Or seek out a total change of career in the Baltic or Black Sea Port cities - again I am sure that the Swedes and Ottomans will be delighted to find something for all of these new recruits to something to do even building new Port cities to give them home and work.  Only probably not called Saint Petersburg or Odessa.

So to Russian Czars in Glori wondering if freeing Serfs is a short cut to improved EH at the cost of some honour points.  I would say "perhaps" but you you still need to do the hard work of taking over the Polish Ukraine with all its lovely Black Earth, the Baltics and the coastal zones of the Black Sea first.  

PS Oddly in the C14 and C15 when looking at why Nobles in Western States like France, Italy, England and Western Germany swapped Serfdom for rents at the same time as Nobles in lands east of the Elbe in Poland, Hungary and the Lands which became Russia imposed every stricter forms of Serfdom on peasents who had formerly been more free than those in England and France one of the main reasons offered was the growth of grain exports from the Baltic.  Not only did grain exports give the Eastern Nobility the cash/power to dominate both the Monarchy and the Towns but essentially to take part in this international export trade you needed to have big estates, carts and escorts which could spend weeks on the road, factors and contacts.  So East of the Elbe the grain export trade helped the expansion of large noble estates worked by serfs and towards the demise of small independent farmers at the very same time as states in Western Europe were going the other way.

Have even seen it suggestted that the domination of Eastern European economies by the International Grain trade and also the Spainish economy by silver mining in earlier period had effect like domination of some Arab and other modern states by the oil trade.  In that the people in control of these trades become hugely rich and dominate the whole State in ways which may actually harm both the political and economic development of that state.

Strange theory that distortions caused by finding oil, silver and even a hugely successful export trade may actually be bad for you but it does seem to make a few valid points.

Ref Papa Clement post about small farmers making the best recruits for the Army due to their superior fitness and sometimes ability round horses compared to townies and unfree labour:-

a) This was a particular issue in the Roman Empire as when small Italian Farmers were pushed off their land by the growth of huge slave worked estates the Legions were starved of their best source of recruits and had to recruit elsewhere - Spain, then the Danube lands and then amongst Germans which had a major effect on both and military and political developments in the Empire.

In both the later Empire and the Byzantine Empire it seems that large landowners protected their workforce from recuitment into the Army and this was a major motive for people to accept the protection of landlords and why the Legions became both smaller and more mercenary compared to earlier armies.

b) Normally Slaves and unfree labour such as those used to farm the great Italian states of Roman Senators or coloured Slaves in the Americas could not be used in the military apart from in very minor roles like digging ditches and were kept well away from both horses and weapons. The major exception being in Islamic and Asian states which developed elite classes of military slaves like the Mamlukes and the Janissaries based on a theory that everyone is a slave even the Sultan who is Gods slave. Such military slave classes often dominated the State though the same can be said about Eunchs in China and Byzantium and Imperial freedmen in Rome who were rarely military more civil service.

c) Serfdom esp as it developed in Russia and other lands east of the Elbe seems to be a compromise in making the peasants virtual slaves of the Nobility in economic terms but still have them available to the Czar etc for military service which seems a pretty rubbish deal for the peasants. So much so that the Cossacks and military frontier areas seem to have existed partly as a pressure volve for really annoyed peasant hot head types to run off too......better social deal provided you dont mind hot living in a military buffer zone and getting your pigs and wife nicked by slave raiders. Hell you can even pinch them back, well perhaps not the exact wife or pig but someones.

With some exceptions an informal and sometimes formal agreement seems to have existed that in exchange for having access to their Serfs for military service the Czar and also other Eastern European Rulers would keep the elite military and other top jobs in the State as the sole preserve of the Nobility/Boyers/Junkers and not copy the otherwise influential examples of Byzantine Emperors or Sultans in employing either their own Serfs or imported Slaves in the top jobs so as to break Noble domination of the State. Though some did seem to experiment with non Noble organizations loyal only to them while others imported and employed a lot of people from outside their own state.

Find it interesting and probably down to luck/personality how so many of these Eastern European States with broadly the same starting balance between Monarchy and Aristocratic Power ended up with such different results. With in some states like Poland and Hungary the Aristocracy win almost completed control of the Monarchy while in others they become the devoted but privilaged servents of the ruler. Hardly comes out in Glori but 1690's Russia is so backwards that they are still having this debate big time.

The Kingdom of Hungary one of the larger if not largest multi National States at times in Europe is a very odd case in that earlier on the mostly Hungarian Aristocracy like that of Poland wins almost complete domination over both the Monarchy and many non Hungarian peoples in the Kingdom. But after a military disaster which kills the King and a lot of the Nobility a large faction of the nobility panic and call in the Germanic Hapsburgs as the only force able to save them from the Ottomans. Though many suffer from "buyers regret" as the Hapsburgs as a family may not be hugely gifted but are very, very hard to control with set idea's about their place in the world.

Another faction tries to stick with electing their own King and keeping Hungary outside of both Hapsburg and Ottoman zones of influence and another faction tries to do a deal with the Sultan to leave them in charge but under Ottoman overlordship. To add to the complexity the reformation arrives and the Nobility split even further on religious lines.

Not often seen in Glori in G2 a certain Ottoman Pasha with a Hungarian Protestant Grandmother had a fun time picking at the threads. Finally getting his man elected King of Hungary and another exile elected as Hopsdar of Transylvania. Even if he did have to execute a number of members of the Diet to get vote passed. Like to think of it as proof that if in Glori you want to restore the Jacobites or restore defend Noble rights against the the Absolutism of Russian Czars its not a 100% hopeless cause. Though I doubt if playing the French Protestants is a do-able position.

In Game 9 both Russia and France seemed to have abolished Serfdom, what the economic effect of this are I cannot say, but the old reactionary Emperor Leopold had been top of the honour table for some years with the liberal Tsar and King Louis somewhat further down.  Even Leopold is an enlightened despot with schools, scholarships, housing and healthcare for his loyal Serfs.  One wonders who would be better off, the Hapsburg serf or the newly freed Russian or French farmer trying to make a living off his barren smallholding.  Would the downtrodden serfs in Hungary turn on their masters if they revolt against good Emperor Leopold one wonders?

So had a rather amusing half hour playing around with Bing Bard

I started by asking it a few of the more "alternative history" questions (e.g. was a Russian Alaska viable?  what evidence is there for Chinese colonies in Africa/India/Americas? how likely was a Stuart restoration in 18th C England?) and the answers didn't come back with anything of interest/use

Then tried a few easier historical questions (e.g. what was the darien scheme? what was the impact of the battle of Hastings?  what caused the 7 years war?  Who was Zheng He?) and the answers were more encouraging; good quick summaries that might be a useful introduction if you knew nothing

I went onto ask it about the Scottish Government initiative that is my current day job and it gave a very good summary (better than the official summary if anything)

Finally for fun, I asked it about me.  Bard couldn't cope with me asking about my name alone but if I added in a job title from previous jobs it did give me a quick summary of what my job was then however the answers were worded as if it was still my current job.  

One feature I found interesting was after Bard gave me an answer it did give a few related questions as further options and those were pretty good

So going back to Marshal's original question, as it improves I think I would use such AI for research, in addition to my usual methods/approaches but not in place of any.

Goldstar wrote:In Game 9 both Russia and France seemed to have abolished Serfdom, what the economic effect of this are I cannot say, but the old reactionary Emperor Leopold had been top of the honour table for some years with the liberal Tsar and King Louis somewhat further down.  Even Leopold is an enlightened despot with schools, scholarships, housing and healthcare for his loyal Serfs.  

I wouldn't just go on the honour table ... rising to the top of the table is often as dependent upon other players sinking as you doing something to propel yourself higher.  Some positions like the Holy Roman Emperor do seem to start off with high honour and all it takes is for a few HRE states to continually pay them compliments or hold balls in their honour and they will quickly rise to the top of the table without actually doing anything to deserve it.  Some other players seem to do nothing but patronise the arts or explore their own country's culture, which also seems to boost honour.  No problem with that since players are free to set their own objectives.  But I have noticed that those players who involve themselves more deeply in the game and take risks, regularly have honour scores that fluctuate more.

I don't know in G9 if King Louis has been fighting a few wars (perhaps that is expected as France, so failure to fight could be lowering his honour), or the Tsar has been going around banging the Orthodox drum (like in G7), but I suspect that in both cases freeing the serfs may not be the top concern of nobles (which is what the honour score reflects).

Goldstar wrote:One wonders who would be better off, the Hapsburg serf or the newly freed Russian or French farmer trying to make a living off his barren smallholding.

If there is an economic benefit then it would be relative: both serfs and freed farmers may become better off in the longer term (theoretically), but the one-off transfer of capital would make it harder for those who missed it and probably lead to population movement towards the towns.  They may get better jobs in the towns than they would have done if still tied to the land, who knows?  The point is that in the game any such benefit would probably be seen with improved EH rather than higher honour.

Goldstar wrote:Would the downtrodden serfs in Hungary turn on their masters if they revolt against good Emperor Leopold one wonders?

Again, revolt risk tends to be related to low EH not honour, so it really doesn't matter how well thought of Emperor Leopold is by his nobility, or how many 'schools, scholarships, housing and healthcare' improvements he has made.  Life at the bottom in 1700 was tough and precarious; what we think of as modern improvements did not come in to benefit rural peasants, but to try to sort out urban poverty and avoid riots in towns where conditions were even worse.  So if Emperor Leopold slipped up with the Austrian economy (consecutive unrelieved famines, invasion by bandits trashing his canals/roads) and his EH dropped to 2 or 1, I would expect unrest.

I am not defending serfdom, but whether it was official or unofficial, the odds were stacked against those without money or influence, and the poor were always just one famine away from ruin.

In Scotland under the Clan system, the peasants may not officially have been serfs, but in all practical ways they were owned by the Clan chiefs who had what was known as the powers of pit and gallows (effectively life and death) over them.  I was only reading about this yesterday: when a woman of his clan was brought before Macdonald of Clanranald accused to stealing his money, he simply gave orders for her long hair to be tied to the seaweed growing on the rocks on the shore, and for her to be left there for the rising tide to drown her.  No wasting time with a trial or evidence.  She may have been completely innocent and the false charges maliciously brought.  Yet as clan chief he was also responsible for the welfare of his people, and as Lords of the Isles, they had their own Parliament (not perhaps as we would understand it as a check on the power of the chief, but to administer justice when the chief was leading his clan into battle).  This is one of the most extraordinary things about the system - the way that however mistreated they may have been in peace, once the chief went to war the clan united behind him and would follow him to death.  I don't know how many Austrian peasants or freed Russian serfs would have shown that kind of loyalty even after schools/hospitals/etc?

Jason2 wrote:So had a rather amusing half hour playing around with Bing Bard

I started by asking it a few of the more "alternative history" questions (e.g. was a Russian Alaska viable?  what evidence is there for Chinese colonies in Africa/India/Americas? how likely was a Stuart restoration in 18th C England?) and the answers didn't come back with anything of interest/use

Then tried a few easier historical questions (e.g. what was the darien scheme? what was the impact of the battle of Hastings?  what caused the 7 years war?  Who was Zheng He?) and the answers were more encouraging; good quick summaries that might be a useful introduction if you knew nothing

I went onto ask it about the Scottish Government initiative that is my current day job and it gave a very good summary (better than the official summary if anything)

Finally for fun, I asked it about me.  Bard couldn't cope with me asking about my name alone but if I added in a job title from previous jobs it did give me a quick summary of what my job was then however the answers were worded as if it was still my current job.  

One feature I found interesting was after Bard gave me an answer it did give a few related questions as further options and those were pretty good

So going back to Marshal's original question, as it improves I think I would use such AI for research, in addition to my usual methods/approaches but not in place of any.

It seems from Jason2's experience, AI is better with simple questions where it can pull the answers from simple searches, then it must use some algorithms to reorganise that into a more structured answer.  This is more primitive than I thought it was.  I thought the whole point of AI is that it learns and therefore goes beyond its input.

What would be an interesting next step is to find a wikipedia article which basically answers a question (e.g. what were the causes of WW1?), and ask the question of the AI.  See how different it is to the wikipedia article.  I suspect it will be an edited version of that article (although perhaps with better grammar?)  Would the AI be able to determine which were the more important causes and reach a view on that or would it just come back with a list?  If it just comes back with a list then it is basically not adding value.  If it generates causes not on the Wikipedia page and explains why it thinks these are causes, then it is learning and can perhaps be called Artificial Intelligence ?

An interesting perspective, but we are dealing with pre-industrial revolution states, what employment exists in the cities?  Also the experience of a Serf may vary greatly from the near slavery endured in Russia, Poland and Hungary, to the somewhat more liberal regime in western states, a few days Robot a week for what effectively where tenet farmers.  18th Century Hapsburgs rulers tried to reform the status of the Serfs despite the conservative attitude of their Hungarian and Polish nobles.  The vlach, Slovakian and Rutheian serfs proved themselves more loyal to their Emperor in Vienna rather than their local lords on numerous occasions during this period.  I am in no way defending Serfdom, very Hayek but this is the 18th century,Serfdom by a paternalistic ruler can offer benefits.

Goldstar wrote:An interesting perspective, but we are dealing with pre-industrial revolution states, what employment exists in the cities?

I don't fully understand why this should be the case, but cities (or larger towns) tend to require more people simply to keep them functioning; more people means more money in circulation within the immediate locality and therefore potentially more opportunities.  Wherever the better off live (for reasons of politics/influence) the area will have more opportunities, more businesses set up, so therefore more jobs.  This is not simply a consequence of industrialisation, but was the case when the enclosure acts drove people off the land in the 1600s.  Trade will flow into the cities because of increased demand from the higher number of people living in the cities.

If you want specific examples, then just think of what jobs are required to support the administration of a state and residence of the monarch.  Those nobles who appear at court would need fancy clothes (often from imported fabrics or lace since they would want to stand out from the mundane); different styles of wigs (more jobs for wig makers); as the ruler calls Parliament they would also need supporting by lawyers, paper suppliers, printers; all these goods need extra transport so wheelwrights, carpenters, blacksmiths to look after the horses ... and on it goes.  All these extra people need more food, so grain merchants, bakers, etc.  Eventually when the slums caught fire someone would think to employ more firemen, police, then men and materials for rebuilding ... and so cities seem to create a dynamic of their own.

Industrialisation (or perhaps more correctly urbanisation) was not a consequence of factories and machines, but arose in a primitive form because of surplus labour concentrated in towns allowed greater scale of production and specialization of labour; goods became available in quantity in one place from where they could be exported/transported rather than in small scale decentralised rural areas where any production tended to be more of a seasonal hobby (the real work being on the land).  Factories and machines changed the method of production and helped absorb more labour and subsidiary activities such as transportation.  It is precisely this kind of activity that the game improvements of roads/canals are designed to stimulate.

Goldstar wrote: Also the experience of a Serf may vary greatly from the near slavery endured in Russia, Poland and Hungary, to the somewhat more liberal regime in western states, a few days Robot a week for what effectively where tenet farmers.  18th Century Hapsburgs rulers tried to reform the status of the Serfs despite the conservative attitude of their Hungarian and Polish nobles.  The vlach, Slovakian and Rutheian serfs proved themselves more loyal to their Emperor in Vienna rather than their local lords on numerous occasions during this period.  I am in no way defending Serfdom, very Hayek but this is the 18th century,Serfdom by a paternalistic ruler can offer benefits.

My point was that whether serfdom was official or unofficial, the realities of life for those at the bottom of society would not substantially change.  But the problem with enlightened despotism is that it is self-defeating and enforces an ideal of a static society.  At what point do you stop making things better for the serfs, or put it another way what benefit is there for the serfs to have all these improvements if they lack the freedom to choose their way in life?  The paternalist ruler (or enlightened despot) looks down on his people as he would sheep or pigs.  Indeed many aristocrat farmers built very fancy piggeries while their peasants lived in hovels of a much lower standard.  There was a certain logic to this: pigs are a valuable asset which if treated well will bring forth more pigs, whereas serfs are just a drain on poor relief.  Unless he was rather eccentric, a farmer would not teach his pigs to count so why should he do this for his peasants?

You probably know more about the specific Hapsburg examples than I do, but did the Slovakian and Ruthenian serfs look to their emperor to protect them from the arbitrary rule of their local lords?  Surely the best way for him to do that would be to limit the power of local lords or transfer the power to himself?  But if he did that then would the local lords (nobility?) not rebel against him, or in game terms his honour would fall? I suspect that the local lords would not take kindly to being under the paternalist rule of the emperor (even if they were treated like pigs and taught to count, so that some class distinction could remain to separate them from the peasants).

I find it quite surprising that you consider "serfdom by a paternalistic ruler can offer benefits" that outweigh the drawbacks.  Benefits to whom?  Not to the peasants who are effectively kept in slavery; not to the merchants who are handicapped by an agrarian economy; not to the nobles (most of whom were too lazy to rule competently and had no incentive to improve); not even for the monarch, who may have been deluded to think that everyone in his kingdom loved him right up to the point where they rose up and chopped his head off.

The closest parallel I can think of is with North Korea - tightly controlled by propaganda and brute force, the peasants make extraordinary sacrifices for Kim, who no doubt believes he is the servant of his people and works constantly for their improvement.  But if given the choice, would the people of North Korea choose freedom or cling to Kim for fear of something worse?

Purely in-game impact and only speaking of my experience (Russia and France) I saw a boost to Economic Health, better harvest results and my recruits increase by 15,000 to 20,000 per year.

Granted it was with two of the games larger positions and I am sure other factors were in play with the improvements as well (for EH and harvest results).

Having serfs in your lands does reduce your recruit pool.

having just checked my annual returns recruits for France, it went from 45,000 with serfdom in place to (last three years), 63,623, 62,880 and 59,280 having released serfs into tenant farmers. My EH which is high is beginning to impact numbers but still up from serf levels.

Earnings during the same period have gone from £343.30 to £492.34 (nobility) and £70.72 to £74.76 (church)

Economy in Russia? I need to step in!

I’ve just realized what i think might be the boldest “free the serfs” reform in tGoK, at least for what I am aware of. All serfs of Russia are being freed (7 tranches, one per year). A subsidy has been placed in payment to church and nobles in return for the freeing of their serfs.

Concerning HH, mine has always been…rotten, unless when subsiding those lazy ass boyars. I must admit that i had a god moment when a specific combination of good harvest in southern Russia + freeing the serfs + subsiding the commoners + milestone in European Russia saw my HH jump from 3 to 7 in one month! Luckily for me, i just had the bright idea to “introduce improved ploughts” again in Russia. This innovation, also known by me as the “kill HH improvement “ immediately stepped HH back to 3, and despite being immediately removed, HH still lies on 3.

I’ll keep you updated on how the process of freeing the serfs will improve my HH, because if it works for me, than you’ll have cracked Russian HH!

(Did I you support your serfs when being released? Of course i did, they had State Farm tools and animals, tax exemption, donation of seeds, trained farmers and vets assigned, agricultural missions in support and even an agricultural academy devoted to their wellness).

Nexus06 wrote:Economy in Russia? I need to step in!

I’ve just realized what i think might be the boldest “free the serfs” reform in tGoK, at least for what I am aware of. All serfs of Russia are being freed (7 tranches, one per year). A subsidy has been placed in payment to church and nobles in return for the freeing of their serfs.

Concerning HH, mine has always been…rotten, unless when subsiding those lazy ass boyars. I must admit that i had a god moment when a specific combination of good harvest in southern Russia + freeing the serfs + subsiding the commoners + milestone in European Russia saw my HH jump from 3 to 7 in one month! Luckily for me, i just had the bright idea to “introduce improved ploughts” again in Russia.  This innovation, also known by me as the “kill HH improvement “ immediately stepped HH back to 3, and despite being immediately removed, HH still lies on 3.

I’ll keep you updated on how the process of freeing the serfs will improve my HH, because if it works for me, than you’ll have cracked Russian HH!

(Did I you support your serfs when being released? Of course i did, they had State Farm tools and animals, tax exemption, donation of seeds, trained farmers and vets assigned, agricultural missions in support and even an agricultural academy devoted to their wellness).

If people have cracked the problem of Russian Economic Health.......perhaps they can turn their collective wisdom to the greatest Economic problem in Glori that of Spanish Customs returns or lack there off.