warsaw is more active whereas moscow is more defensive. an army in st petersburg is probably to later threaten germany through sweden, but it could just be to make sure you get scandinavia, since armies move a little more freely than fleets.

Ow sorry I couldn't hear you over the mute bolshoi, what was that? ;)
Haha no I haven't muted you. I thought your comments on a discussion I started recently were interesting and you're possibly right on this one. Hoping for more contributions of course :)

It is better to be feared than loved. Sometimes a hint of potential aggression can actually strengthen an alliance, as well as giving you more options.

Another thing to consider is which of your SCs are actually open for builds and how many builds you have. Sometimes I think it is worth intentionally maneuvering so that one or more of your SCs are closed so that you can then "have no choice" but to use a build in a particular SC. If you have two builds and only Warsaw and Moscow are open, you can only build two armies, so you aren't signaling anything by doing so. I guess it's a little different when St. Pete or Sev are open and you also have to choose between army and fleet.

St. Petersburg: The level of hostility these builds portray is essentially related to their effectiveness. No one is really scared of an army here... because an army is horribly ineffective at portraying long-term force. It can threaten Norway, oh sure, but then you have an army in Norway which can't go any further against England (unless you supported Sweden to Norway with the army, which is even more hilarious because St. Petersburg is blocked for the build and Germany can snipe at Sweden). Likewise the army can provide a threat to Germany if allowed to occupy Sweden with a fleet in Baltic Sea, but (a) this is difficult to ensure and (b) even then, army Sweden/fleet Denmark is a very weak position for continuing against anyone, and army Denmark/fleet Baltic Sea isn't that great either.

Meanwhile, a second fleet in the Baltic/Bothnia area can actually be a serious danger to Germany, as it allows Russia to secure the water passages around the German coast and put a much more influential fleet Denmark/fleet Baltic Sea arrangement in the German's way. And of course a second fleet built on the northern coast of St. Petersburg constitutes an existential threat to England if accompanied by any help from France and Germany whatsoever.

Similarly a fleet in Sevastopol, or an army in Sevastopol when Russia has a fleet in the Black Sea which Turkey cannot dislodge, is a very grave threat to Turkey, and thus is received very hostilely. An army in Warsaw isn't inherently hostile to Germany or Austria because on its own it is little more than a nuisance; coupled with an anti-German/Austrian setup, though, it is indeed a serious problem and not received well. It is also for this reason that an army in Moscow only offends an ally who expected a build more threatening to an expected target!

Thanks all!
spyman, Nerevatus, are you interested in joining my new game? Mr. President here is already in, as are me, LakersFan and DILK.

I'd be interested in joining if you don't mind including a newbie like me.

Whoops, remove the "St. Petersburg:" tab, haha.

And yeah, do welcome him in! Newbie perhaps, but certainly a promising talent with 3 wins and a draw for your first four games. Looks like a quality addition to me!

I concur with PE's opinion. He looks like a solid player, and by your own carnivorous rating, he will eat you up!!!

lol

Yep and you too because Nerevatus has the highest Carnivore score possible: 1.

Oh wow, missed that one was an 02 draw due to CD. Strong work, Nerevatus!

I noticed that. So far, he seems like he knows what he's doing and he respects the game.
@redhouse, eat me.

I would, if you joined my game.

About the army in St. Pete: that sucker is going to one place and one place only, and that's Finland. Two reasons: one, an army in Finland can support moves to all three Norwegian neutrals, and two, to prevent someone else from putting an army in Finland!

An StP army isn't a direct threat to either England or Germany; it's more of a statement of intent to dominate Scandinavia.

^While true, I feel like the move you need to do if you're putting an army in Finland is to put the Moscow army there in A01. Then put a fleet on Stp(nc) and you're golden.

Oh, yeah. If you've already got an army in Finland, building another one in St. Pete is goofy for anything except a convoy to England. And I wouldn't do that unless the convoy route is already guaranteed at the time the army is built.

Redhouse/President Eden/Zultar: Thanks for the encouragement. Redhouse's game will be a fun challenge and I'm looking forward to it. Three games isn't much of a sample size for a Carnivore score, but I'll take it while it lasts!

@zultar, It's too bad you won't be in the game. I hope to meet you in a future game as well!

I would point out that a second fleet in StP-sc can be a great disguise against England or as a wedge between an obvious Anglo-German alliance (note what F SWE-SKA and F STP-(GoB/FIN)-SWE does, especially coupled with an army move to StP!).

The second Baltic fleet could be arranged as part of an alliance with Germany to disguise the anti-English intentions, too.

With respect to Sevastopol, building a second fleet there basically commits you for the rest of the game to the destruction of Turkey (or at least until you are forced to disband, which of course you are hoping never to do!). So if you want to keep the Juggernaut option open at all, an army in Sevastopol is probably a better choice.

That said, if you are Austria, lobby HARD for that second southern fleet!

i pretty much agree with speaker. the second fleet will make turkey crap himself. but you don't necessarily have to wipe turkey out with it, you can just tell him "ok, i can wipe you out at any time, so why don't you do what i say?" kind of like what england can do to germany if he takes scandinavia.