I'm pretty sure than Manoralism represents exact opposite of free farming, with manors and serfdom being the source of wealth, and Medieval Farms representing such feudal manors/domens.
I'm pretty sure most of the farms in medieval europe were subsistence farms. Like, yes, lords owned the land and the serfs were bound to the land and taxed a portion of each harvest, but commercial scale farming was not the norm, after taxation and consumption, peasants rarely had much if any surplus to sell at local markets. I'd call that quite the definition of subsistence farming.
This is kinda the point of manoralism. The land itself is the main mean of production, the economy runs on surplus of serfs' toil that is appropriated by the landlords as a payment for using land for serfs subsistence. I think that Farms represent such domains, while unimproved lands represent disorganised, sparsely populated areas (which are most useful if you run a (loose) confederation aka Elective).
Manoralist economies, by the definition of subsistence farming, ran on subsistence farming. I am not aware of any definition of subsistence farming that precludes taxation, but subsistence farming is not commercial farming. Commercial farms grow a small number of high-yield crops, benefiting greatly from the economics of scale, whereas subsistence farms grow a great variety of crops such that most basic needs are met. Unless I am mistaken, serfs grew a great variety of crops under manorialism, and not the limited variety typical of commercial scale farms.
Are you implying that Farms improvement should appear only with historical Capitalism where commerical farms (which are better represented as Plantation/Orchards in game) became widespread? Ingame Farms clearly focus on
, Manoralism enchances them with 
representing the landlords and the gentry making profit from serfdom.
From my understanding, manorialism in Europe developed as trade broke down following the collapse of the empire, and the localities needed to be more self-sufficient. Of course, how this translates in-game is a bit subjective. But I'd argue that representing non-improved tiles with +1Are you implying that Farms improvement should appear only with historical Capitalism where commerical farms (which are better represented as Plantation/Orchards in game) became widespread? Ingame Farms clearly focus on
Non-improved plots, however, have no associated yield.
is a good way to represent the lack of development and decentralization that characterized manorialism in the early middle ages. And the development of farm improvements can represent the maturity from those early stages in the early middle ages.
Are you implying that Capitalism invented cash crops?Are you implying that Farms improvement should appear only with historical Capitalism where commerical farms (which are better represented as Plantation/Orchards in game) became widespread? Ingame Farms clearly focus on
Non-improved plots, however, have no associated yield.
What stops a serf from working on cash crops, while still being a part of a manor/a feudal domain and not a modernish commercial farm? And again, they are better represented by Orchards and Plantations than Farms.
The fact serfs had to provide for their basic needs stopped them from engaging in commercial farming. Commercial farming has existed since the development of complex societies. It became more viable with advances in Chemistry and Genetics, and that's why those techs give +1 food to farms, but it has still existed throughout history. If unimproved land does not represent subsistence agriculture, what does it represent? Hunter-gatherers? Were there tons of hunter-gatherers living outside of city centers in medieval Europe? Should the 600 CE map be amended to have farms everywhere?
And what Farms represent, then?
Farmer markets existed (serfs lived by selling their goods above their own consumption and buying what they need), but it's not like farmer markets were larger part of economy than what remained in landlord property. And landlords sure can sell their surplus (aka more than a half of) production for profit, which sounds... commercial?
That reads like you're using different words to say that unimproved tiles are subsistence farms and farms are commercial farms
Uh, let's say you are a noble, you own some villages with like 1000 (add zeroes to your taste) serfs. They rent your land to feed themselves, they pay you for it with, say, half of their production. Can it be called a commerical farming? It's not like you found these villages, it's not like you do it purely for commerical profit (likely you care more for food provisions for your levies, horses for knights and other military needs and wine to make the archbishop more agreeable, and something to pay to your liege - speaking in general terms, of course). The gentry aren't the bourguise.
No, of course not, that sounds like a more decentralized, disorganized, and inefficient system when compared to commercial farming, only half of the crop is a monoculture in your example
Uh, commerce cash = grown to make profit. A noble could use the food to supply his town (because townsfolk tends to die when not fed, even for money), court or to supply troops. It's not like wheat was terribly profitable (although some was probably sold to parties other than noble's subjects), it was a necessity.
Because historically manorialism was defined by subsistence agriculture?
That is not my definition. Unimproved flood plains are subsistence farms, but subsistence farms in flood plains historically had much more surplus crop, which was why complex societies tended to develop around them more easily
How can it be defined by it if landlords still had surplus value?
There was still commercial farming under Manorialism, just not as much as in non-manorialistic societies.
Tbf late Roman empire already had something like serfs called coloni.
