A.

My vote goes to
B. This is merely an anti-Russia move, but not a declaration of war.

A why else does england need an army on that part of the mainland

@hwh2219, to keep a fleet in North Sea while putting the other fleet in English Channel.

My answer is that it depends on the other fleets and what else is going on.

I'd say C. Leaves his fleet versatile for other uses. Germany and France should be watching out, rather than Russia.

B, but it could depend on what the other fleet does.

I would vote C in general, but if there is a fleet in norweigan sea, its B. If the fleet has moved into barents, its A.

Keeps the fleet in north sea I would have said neutral

could be any of the above, except D, i think, unless england wants to help russia gain sweden. so, any of the above :)

I say B, even tempted to say C. England often opens to Nwg/Nth/Yor, and the convoy is a very natural follow-up.

A declaration of war is always mutual. If Russia takes serious offense at the English army being in Norway, then it's war. If England continues to support Russia into Sweden, it may prove to be a strong alliance.

B

C

This is a very common opening , and probably the best English opening , both Diplomatically and Strategically imho.

It gives England a lot of flexibility, it gets all Englands units into play already in 1901, and is more solid, then the convoy into BEL!

A. England has declared war on Russia.

Things can still be turned around (things can almost always be turned around) but short of actually moving into Russia territory this is a very anti-Russia move. I think Russia should assume the worst (but hope for the best).

A. A fleet at Norway isn't as dangerous for Russia as an army is. Besides, the English armies, once convoyed, tend to keep a long while in the area. This is no good news to Russia.

B

In isolation I'd say B, but there are plenty of possible scenarios where this would not be the case.

B It is a possible basis for any solid attack on Russia but it's also England's safest way to get the first build so no anti-Russian sentiment might be involved. Unless the second fleet is in Barents, only next years reveals the true nature of that move.

B or C, it really depends on the diplomacy in the given game to figure out which one though, if Russia has expressed concerns to England about an army in Norway that have not been answered or England has agreed not to put an army in Norway and does anyway then probably B, otherwise it's probably C.

B

B. And he said don't overthink it. Can't you read?

B. This is merely an anti-Russia move, but not a declaration of war.

This always how I play that move, but I find that Russias on WebDip tend to take it in the "A" fashion almost every time.

B

Following on my last post: seeing how many of you are saying B and some even C, I'll make sure to remind the next Russian when I play as England !!!!

So here's a theory - in games with sufficient diplomacy - by which I mean enough time to talk out long term plans (thus excluding live games and gunboats), I would like to think that this move indicates a failure on England's part at earning either French or German trust. In one or two games I've played, I've been told by both France and Germany to go after Russia and keep off the mainland, and there is no clearer indication to me of an F/G alliance against England. So unless Russia moves to StPetersburg from Norway, wouldn't you much rather use that army in Yorkshire as a bargaining chip, and side with anybody willing to support you into Belgium?

So the only time you convoy to Norway is if you have little or no time to discuss with F/G, or if you've planned a Western Triple. So, I think the convoy is neutral in the sense that it keeps all of England's options open, but is also somewhat of an indication of England being in hot water.

B

Usually B, specially with a fleet on Nwg, but it could be C if he has a fleet on EC.

probably B

E: Not enough information to determine the answer. This is a good GRE question!

Inclined toward "C but WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?!"

Needless to say I disagree with the presumption above that it's the best English opening. By far the best is to land the army in Belgium and the fleet in Norway. As England you should always be aiming for Belgium; it should be the price France or Germany pays for an alliance with you, and if France and Germany are collaborating against you, then you should be doing everything you can to put the brakes on their capturing of Belgium. So there's really no reason not to convoy the army to Belgium: you either stalled an enemy out of Belgium, or you're in there as part of an alliance.

And yes, you should be putting the army in Belgium, not the fleet. A fleet in Belgium is not terribly useful for the English; it provides additional (unnecessary) leverage on the English Channel but sacrifices penetration into Burgundy and Ruhr, a clear disadvantage. And an army in Norway gives up leverage on Barents Sea, Skaggerack and (unnecessary) leverage on Norwegian and North Seas for penetration to Finland; not sure if that's as advantageous.

So... I'm going to go with C. It's "neutral," alright -- and horribly passive.