Tinto Flavour #20 - 23rd of May 2025

[Lord Lambert]

View attachment 1305657

Already put him on ignore

 

[ascii]

View attachment 1305657

Yet you are feeding the one that IS the troll.

 

[Retsu92]

Was this attempt successful? Maybe you should mention, that there were two such attempts during 1605-1614, both supported by Poland, both claimants killed by russian nobility.


Well, if both countries have won relatively same amount of wars against each other, why Poland or PLC should be superior? Or you mean something different?


Have I mentioned something like this? No.


Can you explain me, what do you mean by importance? I understant that Poland, and after that PLC fought Ottomans, influenced HRE and other countries.

However, russian principalities stopped Mongol invasion into Europe. Not directly, however it was impossible for mongols to advance into Europe, while having rebellios states in the rear. And Moscovy has become a leader of these principalities, resulting in a unification of russian states over the timeline of the game. They were doing this already at the start of the game, and this changed the face of easter Europe during the timeline. During all this periond Moscovy and Russia were an important player in the Eastern Europe.


How unimportant was Moscovy if you mention "PLC serving as bulwark against Moscovy and Ottomans"? So they were such a great theat as the Ottomans?
Why during all that timeframe Lithuania and after that PLC tried to dispute borderland of Moscovy/Russia?
Why PLC tried to put polish puppet on the moscovian thone during two Dmitriads?

I can agree with you, that it was difficult to influense HRE politics, without having a border with them. However Moscovy and later Russia had a lot of conflicts with Sweden and Ottomans, and I am pretty sure, this ilfluenced that countries a lot.


Fun fact, this uneducated Russia managed to crush PLC. Probably they didnt have educated people to lead armies, establish alliances and cities, it was just luck.

Thats true, that church palyed significant role in russian everyday life, and that western ideas were coldly met quite often. However, this havend weakend russian culture, and it was broadly accepted after opening the window to the west.
Also first russian university was established in 1724 in St. Petersburg.


Regarding metrics, I would say that other players can determine, which countries are more important. We can compare the amount of people playing Novgorod and Moscovy, versus Poland and Lithuania after release of the game, pretty sure there would be such kind of data from devs, about most played countries.


I am absolutely okey with that.
However, I do not agree that Moscovy or Russia were not important during all the timeframe of the game.

However, russian principalities stopped Mongol invasion into Europe. Not directly, however it was impossible for mongols to advance into Europe, while having rebellios states in the rear. And Moscovy has become a leader of these principalities, resulting in a unification of russian states over the timeline of the game. They were doing this already at the start of the game, and this changed the face of easter Europe during the timeline. During all this periond Moscovy and Russia were an important player in the Eastern Europe.

no they didnt ????

Mongolian invasion was stopped in 13th century by hungary and poland.

Also even after unification Russia was at best second most important player in eastern europe, like i said they were very technologically backwards compared to rest of europe, werent considered part of europe by the rest of europe, served as "invading barbarians",and had minimal impact on anything but wars in the region,and the point again isn Russia was not important, but that commonwealth was more important in the Eastern Europe then Russia, i say Estern Europe, as Russia didnt have any impact on anything in Western Europe before 1700s, which alone places commonwealth as more important.

"Have I mentioned something like this? No."

Yest its literally what you wrote, you said that Plc and Russia fought for about 20% of game time, and through that 20% of game time plc was stronger then russia, ignoring state of muscovy before hand and coming to conclusion plc/poland was stronger then russia only durng 20% of the game time span.


Can you explain me, what do you mean by importance? I understant that Poland, and after that PLC fought Ottomans, influenced HRE and other countries.


Improtance of state on certain peroid is their impact(miltiary/culture/tecnology/contemporary politics) and /social/diplomatic standing in the world, of which Muscovy/Russia for most of the game time was simply regional power, with almost 0 impact on larger state of politics outside of their region, only place they had was steppes and siberia, which lacked any substancialy strong state or population. While for comparisons PLC had actuall impact on continental politics and conflicts, influenced culturally regions it operated and had major contribuiton to technological progress all the while Russia didn even have university.

I can agree with you, that it was difficult to influense HRE politics, without having a border with them. However Moscovy and later Russia had a lot of conflicts with Sweden and Ottomans, and I am pretty sure, this ilfluenced that countries a lot.

Yes but it was really late into game time, and their influence on Ottomans was minimal, their conflics with PLC and stagnation(the same reason behind fall of PLC) were major reason for weakening of Ottomans not Russians. The same goes for PLC their downfall was of their own making, not due to russia becoming stronger then them.

And thas my whole point while Russia became more important later, it happens LATER into the game before 1700s russia has minimal if not zero impact on politics of anything outside their own region.



"Thats true, that church palyed significant role in russian everyday life, and that western ideas were coldly met quite often. However, this havend weakend russian culture, and it was broadly accepted after opening the window to the west."

Literally my point, Russia only became European Great power and more important after they westernised, it did in fact weaken russia culturally, no major technological advanement or impact on local and european cultures , biggest russian impact before westernisation was aggresive treatment to other cultures in its borders and colonisation.

"How unimportant was Moscovy if you mention "PLC serving as bulwark against Moscovy and Ottomans"? So they were such a great theat as the Ottomans?
Why during all that timeframe Lithuania and after that PLC tried to dispute borderland of Moscovy/Russia?
Why PLC tried to put polish puppet on the moscovian thone during two Dmitriads?"

Why, moscovy wasnt of catholic church and was very backwards technologically and culturally, i am talking from how west viewed plc.

Being bulwark against something doestn mean all of that is equal in threat.

"Why during all that timeframe Lithuania and after that PLC tried to dispute borderland of Moscovy/Russia?'

Question to ask about any nation in europe in world during that time, borders barely existed, and there was technically cosntant war between PLC and Russia, as russians were raiding into lithuania, plc defended, plc responded by raiding into russian lands, etc.

"Why PLC tried to put polish puppet on the moscovian thone during two Dmitriads?"

Polish king at that time was big into catholicism and made it his goal to re-catholicise russia, along with his dynastic ambitions later in war to put his son onto the throne, and plc nobility likely wanted Smolensk as it was excelend bulwark against significant invasions of Russians, allowing for time to ammas army to fight them off (plc was massive the only country bigger then it in europe was Russia, but at that time Russia wasnt considered european power).




"Fun fact, this uneducated Russia managed to crush PLC. Probably they didnt have educated people to lead armies, establish alliances and cities, it was just luck."

Again not true, there was 1 war where russia "won" against plc alone, 1792, and it lost the only battle of the war, which itself ended due to polish king at that time being russian puppet and ordering the army to surrender before surrendering to russia.

If i am somehow wrong about that give me example of Russia crushing PLC.

"Regarding metrics, I would say that other players can determine, which countries are more important. We can compare the amount of people playing Novgorod and Moscovy, versus Poland and Lithuania after release of the game, pretty sure there would be such kind of data from devs, about most played countries. "

I agree partialy, as its important to remember people play where there is most content, especially when the game is shortly released.


"However, I do not agree that Moscovy or Russia were not important during all the timeframe of the game."

Where did i say they are not important, my entire point is that commonwealth/poland is more deserving of Tier 1 nation, as they were MORE important through most of the game time frame.

Edit: Also once again i am reminding no one yet argued WHY is Russia more important then PLC in the 1337-1836 time frame, examples, reasons etc. its all whataboutism

 

[Soselo]

View attachment 1305040

Would be cool if you add beards to Orthodox Priests. Ideally they should have their own clothes too, but bears should not be something hard to add... I suppose?

 

[general_de_golle]

no they didnt ????

Mongolian invasion was stopped in 13th century by hungary and poland.

Well, from the facts I know about Mongols invasions in Europe, first and second invasion into Poland resulted into polish defeat, with small losses for the mongols. And even the third invasion didn't result into a mongol defeat.

Hungary - yes, if you mean second invasion into their lands. However, Poland or Lithuania did not take significant part in this battle as I know.

And to remind you - most of the times mongol forces were forced to deal with rebelious russian principalities, and could not use these forces to push Lithuania or Poland.

Yest its literally what you wrote, you said that Plc and Russia fought for about 20% of game time, and through that 20% of game time plc was stronger then russia, ignoring state of muscovy before hand and coming to conclusion plc/poland was stronger then russia only durng 20% of the game time span.

Bullshit. I have never said that PLC and Russia fought only for about 20% of the game timeframe. I said that there was a period, eaqually to approximately 20% of the game timeframe, when PLC managed to be victorious over Moscovy/Russia.
Here is my quote:

From all your posts here I can see, that there was a approximately hundred years period, when PLC managed to achieve victories against Russia. Worth to mention, that this is only about 20% of the game timeline, and this goes directly against your claim about weak/insignificant Moscovy/Russia.

Just to mention, I do not edit my posts and try to keep my messages clear.

Improtance of state on certain peroid is their impact(miltiary/culture/tecnology/contemporary politics) and /social/diplomatic standing in the world, of which Muscovy/Russia for most of the game time was simply regional power, with almost 0 impact on larger state of politics outside of their region, only place they had was steppes and siberia, which lacked any substancialy strong state or population. While for comparisons PLC had actuall impact on continental politics and conflicts, influenced culturally regions it operated and had major contribuiton to technological progress all the while Russia didn even have university.

The only thing I can agree on this, is that Poland and later PLC influenced HRE territories more than Moscovy/Russia before 1700. Regarding Scandinavia, Black Sea coast and Steppes this was not true. And Caucasus, Siberia were not influenced by PLC that much.
I doubt that PLC was not influenced by the west too, and quite a lot of their advances are the result of such influence. And they fit more in the reginal power description, as most of their influence was focused on western european region.

Where did i say they are not important

Improtance of state on certain peroid is their impact(miltiary/culture/tecnology/contemporary politics) and /social/diplomatic standing in the world, of which Muscovy/Russia for most of the game time was simply regional power, with almost 0 impact on larger state of politics outside of their region, only place they had was steppes and siberia, which lacked any substancialy strong state or population. While for comparisons PLC had actuall impact on continental politics and conflicts, influenced culturally regions it operated and had major contribuiton to technological progress all the while Russia didn even have university.

And thas my whole point while Russia became more important later, it happens LATER into the game before 1700s russia has minimal if not zero impact on politics of anything outside their own region.

Also even after unification Russia was at best second most important player in eastern europe, like i said they were very technologically backwards compared to rest of europe, werent considered part of europe by the rest of europe, served as "invading barbarians",and had minimal impact on anything but wars in the region,and the point again isn Russia was not important, but that commonwealth was more important in the Eastern Europe then Russia, i say Estern Europe, as Russia didnt have any impact on anything in Western Europe before 1700s, which alone places commonwealth as more important.

Well, almost in every you sentence?

P.S. If you want to participate in a discussion, while quoting long posts, consider doing it in a readable way.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Yet you are feeding the one that IS the troll.

Do you have the faintest clue what "troll" actually means? Just FYI it doesn't mean "someone I dislike"

 

[Retsu92]

Well, from the facts I know about Mongols invasions in Europe, first and second invasion into Poland resulted into polish defeat, with small losses for the mongols. And even the third invasion didn't result into a mongol defeat.

Hungary - yes, if you mean second invasion into their lands. However, Poland or Lithuania did not take significant part in this battle as I know.

And to remind you - most of the times mongol forces were forced to deal with rebelious russian principalities, and could not use these forces to push Lithuania or Poland.


Bullshit. I have never said that PLC and Russia fought only for about 20% of the game timeframe. I said that there was a period, eaqually to approximately 20% of the game timeframe, when PLC managed to be victorious over Moscovy/Russia.
Here is my quote:

Just to mention, I do not edit my posts and try to keep my messages clear.


The only thing I can agree on this, is that Poland and later PLC influenced HRE territories more than Moscovy/Russia before 1700. Regarding Scandinavia, Black Sea coast and Steppes this was not true. And Caucasus, Siberia were not influenced by PLC that much.
I doubt that PLC was not influenced by the west too, and quite a lot of their advances are the result of such influence. And they fit more in the reginal power description, as most of their influence was focused on western european region.





Well, almost in every you sentence?

P.S. If you want to participate in a discussion, while quoting long posts, consider doing it in a readable way.

"Well, from the facts I know about Mongols invasions in Europe, first and second invasion into Poland resulted into polish defeat, with small losses for the mongols. And even the third invasion didn't result into a mongol defeat.

Hungary - yes, if you mean second invasion into their lands. However, Poland or Lithuania did not take significant part in this battle as I know.

And to remind you - most of the times mongol forces were forced to deal with rebelious russian principalities, and could not use these forces to push Lithuania or Poland."

Mongol invasions stopped mostly due to fall of mongolian empire, even the last defence agaisnt them was succesfull mostly due to mongols retreating as Khan died and they needed to fight for their preffered heir.

Russian principalites didnt have large impact on mongol ivnasions as they didnt stood in the way, in fact they would need to get out of their way to attack them.


"I doubt that PLC was not influenced by the west too, and quite a lot of their advances are the result of such influence. And they fit more in the reginal power description, as most of their influence was focused on western european region."

Untrue most of PCL influence was on Eastern Europe, it was just to highlight that contrary to Russia, PLC wa able to extend its influende outside of their home.

Example, even well ino 1800s ,nobility in what was previously PLC, spoke polish despite russian pressure and constant fight against polish culture and language.

Aditionaly, my point is importance is not just military one, at which Russia failed miserably, and even in military matters they couldnt alone defeate plc in wars, even less so in battles.

"Bullshit. I have never said that PLC and Russia fought only for about 20% of the game timeframe. I said that there was a period, eaqually to approximately 20% of the game timeframe, when PLC managed to be victorious over Moscovy/Russia."

Your message is just saying that this is time frame PLC fought with Russia and, won, whic like i said is dishonest as it suggest before that they didnt. Which is not true as they simply didnt fight, while in late wars russia still loses every battle against PLC, winning due to diplomatic reasons, in 1654, commonwealth was already dead tired from war with sweden and couldnt take back land held by cossacks, and Smolensk held by Russia, despite defeating Russian armies.

in 1792, during "war" there was only single battle won by polish side despite numerical superiority of Russians, war being ended as Russian victory due to Polish king being Russian puppet.


"if you want to participate in a discussion, while quoting long posts, consider doing it in a readable way."

When participatin in discusion, consider making arguments, rather then constant whataboutism.

To this point you didnt give single argument why Russia should be considere more important then PLC.

I doubt i will try to argue with you again, as you simply ignore all atempts to discuss and jump to whataboutism

 

[general_de_golle]

When participatin in discusion, consider making arguments, rather then constant whataboutism.

When you just prefer to ignore the arguments, which does not fit into your vision, and blame others pointing on them for whataboutism, how can it be possible to discuss something at all?

P.S. I have seen your reddit thead on topic we discussed here. For some reason, no one else supported you as here. Guess why.

 

[Retsu92]

When you just prefer to ignore the arguments, which does not fit into your vision, and blame others pointing on them for whataboutism, how can it be possible to discuss something at all?

P.S. I have seen your reddit thead on topic we discussed here. For some reason, no one else supported you as here. Guess why.

Compleate misunderstanding or ingoring what i meant to say ??

"When you just prefer to ignore the arguments, which does not fit into your vision, and blame others pointing on them for whataboutism, how can it be possible to discuss something at all?"

Hipocrisy much

Literally at no point did you argue why Russia was more important it is always, they are interesting, PLC lost ints importance in late 1600s, and never showing why Russia is more imporant, maybe giving example of how Russia doing taht time frame impacted politics around itself, its cultural impact on tatar, caucases, syberia its military might.



No its all what aboutims about how plc did fell off and Russia became global power later, which is just awarding Russia with more content based not on their importance during time frame of game but their recent history.

Or blatantly lying.

 

[Retsu92]

Compleate misunderstanding or ingoring what i meant to say ??

And It says a lot about their statmenst when no one gave argument why in time frame of the game Russia is more important, just "they get content bc they get content"

"When you just prefer to ignore the arguments, which does not fit into your vision, and blame others pointing on them for whataboutism, how can it be possible to discuss something at all?"

Hipocrisy much

Literally at no point did you argue why Russia was more important it is always, they are interesting, PLC lost ints importance in late 1600s, and never showing why Russia is more imporant, maybe giving example of how Russia doing taht time frame impacted politics around itself, its cultural impact on tatar, caucases, syberia its military might.



No its all what aboutims about how plc did fell off and Russia became global power later, which is just awarding Russia with more content based not on their importance during time frame of game but their recent history.

Or blatantly lying.

 

[Ratstranger]

Srsly, that was funny for a while, but this is just thread derailing at this point. Muscovy/Russia will be in the game at T1 or whatever it is called, devs are already made a ton of content, they will not throw it out and start again working on Poland/Commonwealth, there is simply no point arguing for that. Maybe Poland will get it's content in some of the DLC/updates.

Stop spamming in this tread, go chase a bobr or something.

 

[ascii]

Do you have the faintest clue what "troll" actually means? Just FYI it doesn't mean "someone I dislike"

Yes I do, sadly you either have no clue what one is, or have zero self awareness. You have proven it nonstop through this thread that you are the epitome of one. Here is a link to an online dictionary to help you with a couple words I used in the above two sentences. and just in case you need to look up troll.

Merriam-Webster: America's Most Trusted Dictionary

Find definitions for over 300,000 words from the most authoritative English dictionary. Continuously updated with new words and meanings.

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[GeorgeVVBush]

This is fortunate. Flavor for Georgia aside, with daily dev diaries, the release date should be close, hopefully.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Yes I do, sadly you either have no clue what one is, or have zero self awareness. You have proven it nonstop through this thread that you are the epitome of one. Here is a link to an online dictionary to help you with a couple words I used in the above two sentences. and just in case you need to look up troll.

Merriam-Webster: America's Most Trusted Dictionary

Find definitions for over 300,000 words from the most authoritative English dictionary. Continuously updated with new words and meanings.

www.merriam-webster.com

yeah evidently you don't have a clue what you're talking about lol

 

[ascii]

yeah evidently you don't have a clue what you're talking about lol

Yeah, guess you didn't use the dictionary or I was spot on about the self awareness. lol

 

[Lord Lambert]

Yeah, guess you didn't use the dictionary or I was spot on about the self awareness. lol

You guess incorrectly. Probably due to that aforementioned lack of knowing wtf you're talking about. I would suggest you use that dictionary you linked to actually look up the meaning of troll. I guarantee you that you will find it means something other than what you think

Now, onto the ignore list you go too, troll.

 

[Pangloss110]

You mean five?

Lol I meant two per TF (Venice and Genoa, Serbia and Georgia).

 

[Vernichtere]

"Well, from the facts I know about Mongols invasions in Europe, first and second invasion into Poland resulted into polish defeat, with small losses for the mongols. And even the third invasion didn't result into a mongol defeat.

Hungary - yes, if you mean second invasion into their lands. However, Poland or Lithuania did not take significant part in this battle as I know.

And to remind you - most of the times mongol forces were forced to deal with rebelious russian principalities, and could not use these forces to push Lithuania or Poland."

Mongol invasions stopped mostly due to fall of mongolian empire, even the last defence agaisnt them was succesfull mostly due to mongols retreating as Khan died and they needed to fight for their preffered heir.

Russian principalites didnt have large impact on mongol ivnasions as they didnt stood in the way, in fact they would need to get out of their way to attack them.


"I doubt that PLC was not influenced by the west too, and quite a lot of their advances are the result of such influence. And they fit more in the reginal power description, as most of their influence was focused on western european region."

Untrue most of PCL influence was on Eastern Europe, it was just to highlight that contrary to Russia, PLC wa able to extend its influende outside of their home.

Example, even well ino 1800s ,nobility in what was previously PLC, spoke polish despite russian pressure and constant fight against polish culture and language.

Aditionaly, my point is importance is not just military one, at which Russia failed miserably, and even in military matters they couldnt alone defeate plc in wars, even less so in battles.

"Bullshit. I have never said that PLC and Russia fought only for about 20% of the game timeframe. I said that there was a period, eaqually to approximately 20% of the game timeframe, when PLC managed to be victorious over Moscovy/Russia."

Your message is just saying that this is time frame PLC fought with Russia and, won, whic like i said is dishonest as it suggest before that they didnt. Which is not true as they simply didnt fight, while in late wars russia still loses every battle against PLC, winning due to diplomatic reasons, in 1654, commonwealth was already dead tired from war with sweden and couldnt take back land held by cossacks, and Smolensk held by Russia, despite defeating Russian armies.

in 1792, during "war" there was only single battle won by polish side despite numerical superiority of Russians, war being ended as Russian victory due to Polish king being Russian puppet.


"if you want to participate in a discussion, while quoting long posts, consider doing it in a readable way."

When participatin in discusion, consider making arguments, rather then constant whataboutism.

To this point you didnt give single argument why Russia should be considere more important then PLC.

I doubt i will try to argue with you again, as you simply ignore all atempts to discuss and jump to whataboutism

I don't really understand where this discussion is headed. More important in which areas and according to what criteria?

Poland and Moscow will receive roughly the same amount of love anyway.

But if I were to follow logic, the developers would have to focus entirely on China, India, and the Middle East. They have more population and wealth than the Europeans at the time.

It's a game, and you're selling it to a certain audience. We're talking about a game featuring the Swedish superpower.

 

[iliaplotnikov]

There is a lot of potential for representing important changes in the state and society of the Principality of Moscow / Russian Tsardom / Russian empire. But I felt like there are inaccuracies or misunderstandings in the way some concepts are represented here that may undermine this potential.

1. Boyars as the landowner estate
(This one is more far-fetched and theoretical, so can be skipped, but is relevant to some of others)
During the period of the game, the social structure of the Principality of Moscow / Russian Tsardom had undergone several significant changes, which affected how the terms such as boyars were used.

During this period, there were two competing types of land ownership: votchina, which is a private property that can be inherited, divided and sold, and pomestye, which is temporarily leased under certain conditions and easily revocable. Their owners are called votchinniki and pomeshchiki respectively. When analyzing the social structure of the Principality of Moscow at the beginning of the XIV century, the term boyars is usually used to refer to the class of hereditary landowners (votchinniki), which is close to the widespread notion of nobility in other countries. Votchinniki / boyars were the most significant group of landowners at the earlier part of the game period. They were expected to perform military and administrative functions and receive important positions in government.

At the same time, there was another emerging class of people serving the government in military and administrative functions, usually called sluzhilye lyudi, literally people who serve (although in some cases sluzhilye lyudi can include boyars). This group consisted of several different social classes, such as dvoryane (literally courtiers) and boyarskie deti (literally children of boyars). Members of these classes were awarded land in the form of pomestye in exchange for their service and thus became pomeshchiki. Pomestye was usually given to a specific person for his life (or in some cases for the duration of his service), so every member of sluzhilye lyudi was expected to enter service at an appropriate age in order to earn pomestye.

In the XIV century, boyars and sluzhilye lyudi such as dvoryane were not a uniform group and had a conflict of interests, with the opposition of these groups being close to that of Nobles of the Sword and Nobles of the Robe in France. However, with the growing centralization of the state, the difference between these groups became less noticeable, as the influence of boyars had diminished, their privileges had been gradually revoked, the difference between votchina and pomestye blurred because of the practice of keeping pomestye in one family. The importance of pomestyes also grew, as many votchinas were confiscated and transformed into pomestye, and most land acquisitions were used to create more pomestyes.

By the XVI century sluzhilye lyudi had become a more homogenous class encompassing both votchinniki and pomeshchiki, with an internal hierarchy mainly based on how long each family had been serving (mestnichestvo). Because of this, the term boyars had transitioned to refer to the highest position in the bureaucratic hierarchy, which is associated with being a member of the Boyarskaya duma. Contrary to the earlier use of the term, this position was not heredatory, but was usually given to members of several families distinguished by mestnichestvo.

To sum up, the groups of people represented currently by the boyars estate is extremely dynamic during this period:​

• early XIV century: boyars are a large class of hereditary landowners (votchinniki);​
• between early XIV century and XVI century: transitional period with two classes of landowners (votchinniki and pomeshchiki) competing;​
• from the XVI century: boyars are a smaller group of most influential families, serving as the upper strata of sluzhilye lyudi, whose position is guaranteed by mestnichestvo.​

As there is only one landowners estate, representing this transition is challenging, so there is a grey area in what exactly the Boyar estate means for the purpose of some events, privileges, reforms and advances. Some events, privileges, reforms and advances could be used to simulate this transition by representing the formation of the system of pomestyes (referenced here briefly by the Pomestnoye voisko advance) and introduction of the system of mestnichestvo (and its eventual abolishment in 1682).

TLDR: Boyars were a class of hereditary landowners that had been gradually merged into a class of non-hereditary state officials, after which boyars came to mean just high-ranking officials usually coming from distinguished families. Using the term as the name of the estate requires taking into account its dynamic nature and the fact that it might exclude other land-owning classes.

2. Kormlenie privilege
Kormlenie is a practice whereby a person appointed to an administrative position was expected to be materially supplied by the local population during the time of their service instead of receiving payment for their services from the central government. Kormlenie was an integral part of the administrative system and directly tied to the administrative position of its receiver.
The description of kormlenie here seems a bit vague. It might be interpreted as referring to this practice (if establishing a financial dependency among the nobles implies dependency on the government), but can be almost mistaken for the system of pomestyes, which is a totally separate matter. It being an estate privilege of boyars makes sense only if this estate is understood to represent all types of sluzhilye lyudi. In any case, it would be more fitting as a reform, as it is more concerned with the structure of state overall than appeasing a specific estate.

Effects of the reform
As for the effects, I am not sure that reducing taxes from nobles makes sense historically, as sluzhilye lyudi were by definition exempt from taxes. It can be argued that kormlenie had a negative effect on all the taxes received by the central government, as part of the income of all population paying taxes was diverted to kormlenie. This is supported by the fact that when kormlenie was abolished, it was transformed into a tax (kormlenyy okup). In addition, kormlenie is associated with corruption, which could also be represented in-game, as the person receiving kormlenie could use it for unregulated extortion.

3. The Book of Census event and Razryadnyy (prikaz) reform
The description of this event and reform seem to mix up two different prikazes: razryadnyy and pomestnyy.

Razryadnyy prikaz (derived from razryad meaning rank) is a prikaz whose main function is concerned with keeping a list of all people serving the state (sluzhilye lyudi), tracing their origin and career path (including the careers of their ancestors), distributing positions in governmental and military offices, determining salaries and benefits received by the servicemen. Overall, quite similar in its range of functions to the HR department. Key function of this prikaz is upholding the system of mestnichestvo. All the information was preserved in the form of razryadnye knigi (literally books of ranks).

Pomestnyy prikaz (derived from pomestye) is a prikaz, whose main function is concerned with the ownership of land. It kept lists of all votchinas and pomestyas and took part in their distribution and registered all types of land transactions. The responsibility of distributing pomestyas was shared with Razryadnyy prikaz, as Razryadnyy prikaz only made the decision to award someone with a pomestye, while Pomestnyy prikaz awarded it. Beginning in the XVII century, pomestnyy prikaz created perepisnye knigi (books of census), which included information about the tax-paying population, originally for the purpose of maintaining the ownership of peasants and later for the purpose of taxations. These replaced earlier pistsovye knigi that included only the information about land ownership.

The event. The flavour text of the event mistakenly associates the creation of perepisnye knigi (books of census) with the activity of Razryadnyy prikaz (should be Pomestnyy prikaz), while also erroneously stating that Razryadnyy prikaz means the book of census (it does not, should be Perepisnye knigi, which is used in plural, so books of census). Though the timeframe is not stated anywhere in the event itself, it would be advisable to make sure that the conditions of this specific event are not tied to the creation of the Razryadnyy or Pomestnyy prikaz, as these books were introduced significantly later (in the XVII century, with the first census conducted in 1646–47). Thus, the flavour text of the event should start with Perepisnye knigi, or Books of Census, and also could mention Pomestnyy prikaz as the department responsible for collecting and keeping these records.

The reform. The reform, as already mentioned in this thread, shouldn’t be titled by the adjective razryadnyy, which makes no sense in Russian. If the reform is intended to represent the perepisnye knigi introduced in the XVII century, it should be called Perepisnye knigi and mention Pomestnyy prikaz in its description.

Effects of the reform:​

• Noble Estate Satisfaction Equilibrium: good, as can represent the fact that the books were introduced to maintain the ownership of peasants;​
• Maximum Tax for Noble Estate: doesn’t make a lot of sense, the taxation didn’t affect nobles specifically;​
• Burgher Estate Satisfaction Equilibrium and Maximum Tax for Burgher Estate: at least shouldn’t be exclusively burghers, as the taxations affected peasants even more and also furthered their enserfment;​
• Levy Size: makes sense;​
• Monthly Progress to Free Subjects: as mentioned before in the thread, should be the other way around.​

4. Prikazi reform
This is plural of prikaz, which should be transliterated as prikazy (if not using English plural prikazes). The description uses prikazi as the name of the reform (The Prikazi is an overhaul…), which makes no sense, it would be better to use something like Introduction of Prikazy is an overhaul.

5. Collegium reform
Should probably be in plural (Collegiums), as it is more consistent with the Prikazy reform and better represents the nature of the reform (several collegiums with specific functions). The description also uses collegium as the name of the reform (The Collegium is an overhaul…), which makes no sense, it would be better to use something like Introduction of Collegiums is an overhaul.

6. Nakaz reform
As already mentioned in this thread, nakaz is an archaic word with general meaning of instruction or recommendation, so not specific enough as a reform name, with Ulozhennaya komissiya being a more recognizable alternative.

Historical Nakaz was not strictly speaking a reform, but a collection of ideas presented by Catherine II as possible directions for the development of the legislative system. The main purpose of Nakaz was not to reform the law, but to inspire discussion of the topics presented in it, both by the public and by a special commission created for the purpose of codifying the laws of the Russian Empire (Ulozhennaya komissiya).

Ulozhennaya komissiya was assembled with the stated purpose of it creating Ulozhenie (hence the name), a new collection of laws to replace the previous Ulozhenie adopted by the Zemsky Sobor of 1649. The organization of Ulozhennaya komissiya was arguably more significant than Nakaz itself, as it represented the first attempt of creating an assembly that represented members of all social classes after the last Zemsky Sobor (1684) and provided a great source of information about the problems and sentiments of different population groups in different region (especially peasants). The legislative activity of Ulozhennaya komissiya turned out to be futile, as it didn’t introduce any significant changes to the law system of the Russian Empire and was soon disassembled, presumably because of its ineffectiveness.

Thus, while the description of the Nakaz reform presented here is correct in assessing its inspiration by the ideas of Enlightenment and aim of simplifying the law, it makes a mistake by taking for granted that it constitutes a reform. Nakaz wasn’t a reform in any way in itself, and historically didn’t lead directly to any reforms. Ulozhennaya komissiya, likewise, was not a reform, but an assembly which was tasked with preparing and carrying out a reform, but historically failed in doing so. This reform might probably be seen as representing an alternative reality in which this attempt is successful, but in this case the document produced by Ulozhennaya komissiya would be called Ulozhenie and would lessen the significance of Nakaz itself even more.

As for its effects, Monthly Progress to Free Subjects could be considered questionable, as Nakaz as published by Catherine II didn’t include any abolitionist ideas (although there are reasons to believe that there was an earlier version of it containing more radical ideas on this topic that was revised under pressure from her advisors).

7. The Table of Ranks advance
This should have some kind of administrative effect as well, even the description is concerned with its effect on bureaucracy. Also, its effect on Russian society is severely understated: the Table of Ranks led to a significant restructuring of society, creating opportunities for social mobility by introducing automatic promotion to nobility at certain ranks. It would be ideal if it could tie into some societal value (like meritocracy).
The complex effect of introducing the Table of Ranks makes it being an advance and not a reform somewhat strange. Would Mestnichestvo, which is mentioned in its description, also by an advance?

This is all over the place, hope some of this could be helpful!​

 

[Inzano]

Lol I meant two per TF (Venice and Genoa, Serbia and Georgia).

It's more unclear because there's only one on Friday. xD