Never say never. There are many situations that 17 vills is way better. First off it doesnt costs your age up time 52 seconds. It only adds 25 to 35 seconds because you will never have 800 food the instant you pop out 14 vills. Secondly you dont start massing and army any later than you opponent becaseu you can build a blockhouse in the first age. You might start building a military 10 seconds later than other civs.yeah aging up with 17 vils as russia is like aging with 19.5 vils, no civ should age with more than 17-18 imo its just too slow, and if russia age with 14 vils its = 16.5 nearly the equivalent as Germany's 17 so its not bad. +you can get a bigger mass earlier, anyway so why waste your advantage ageing with 17 vils. and the 52 seconds your saving off your age up time can be used to harass your enemy and keep his vils off of hunts.
I generally do 14 vills vs civs that are vulnerable very early colonial in an attempt to contain them right away.ie brits, dutch. I alson do 14 vs civs with a very strong and fast rush. ie aztevs and iroquis and india. I do 17 vs civs that need to be overwhelmed with masses but can beat of an early rush easily. ie germany, france.
Trust me ive played probaly 100+ games with russia and my russian win % is around 59% the best of all my civs.
my 2 cents
out