You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

1

Wednesday, May 31st 2006, 5:50pm

Ships for sale

Gentlmen,

I´m currently working on my fleet list and my reports for 1931 - and I noticed I have a few units I can affort to sell.

Available to the market are

4x Nampula -class light cruisers
2x Insect -class torpedo boats (!to be rated CL under the CT!)
8x S -class sloops (unlimited category)
7x Tree -class mine sweepers (unlimited category)
4x E -class ocean going submarines

Stats for these units can be found in the SAE encyclopedia section (except the E-class subs which can be assumed copies of the historical SMS U66-class subs).

If you´re interested but need more information or if you want to place an offer please contact your local SAE weapon dealer.

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

2

Friday, June 2nd 2006, 10:15am

Gentlemen,

many of you are intrested to buy some if not all of these ships. And many of you asked for the price tags.

Easy answer: the highest offer will win the day.

Keep in mind what the revised CT (treaty section) says about selling ships. Of course I will not sell ships below scrap metal value.

Sadly I have to take the E-type submarines off the list as they cannot be replaced (and thus sold) until 1935.

The "auction" will be closed on Sunday 11.59pm CET.

3

Friday, June 2nd 2006, 1:47pm

Well I'd walk around and kick the tyres on the minesweepers but I think SAE is on Greece's 5hit list for supplying Turkey.

Cheers,

4

Friday, June 2nd 2006, 5:24pm

Quoted

Sadly I have to take the E-type submarines off the list as they cannot be replaced (and thus sold) until 1935.

So the South Africans are unwilling to edit the history of the E-type submarines to make such sale legal?
:-)
(and Hooman, I am referring to 'You: The Nation', not 'You: The Player' meaning that the SAE clerics make minute changes in all the paperwork of the subs to make it look older on paper and not that you should alter the date in the SS file).

Quoted

Well I'd walk around and kick the tyres on the minesweepers but I think SAE is on Greece's 5hit list for supplying Turkey.

One more reason to buy those ships. You get the ship with SAE technology so you have an idea what kind of technology is inside the SAE ships built for Turkey.

5

Friday, June 2nd 2006, 7:14pm

Plus if Greece buys them, Turkey can't.

6

Friday, June 2nd 2006, 7:35pm

Quoted

Keep in mind what the revised CT (treaty section) says about selling ships. Of course I will not sell ships below scrap metal value.
What are the exact rules for selling old warships? Ive seen several diferent versions.

7

Friday, June 2nd 2006, 8:24pm

IIRC under CT revisions...

Cost=50% of light displacement for non CT nations
Cost=30% of light displacement for CT nation

8

Saturday, June 3rd 2006, 12:18am

It's not as bad as that. Here's the quote:

"VI.

Contracting Powers may sell warships eligible for replacement to other
Contracting Powers or Non-Contracting Powers. The price of surplus warships shall be 30% of its original cost, minus 3% for every full year that has passed since the vessel could have been replaced. The buyer shall pay in hard currency; until full payment has been made, the vessel shall count against the Contracting Power's treaty allocations, and the contracting Power shall be liable for the vessel's actions."

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

9

Saturday, June 3rd 2006, 1:00am

Well I had a question I was going to ask later, but might as well now-

The CT says of original cost so I was thinking that meant £, but SA is referring to light displacement. So...when "cost" is used, are we speaking warship materials, or £?

For example, my 1911 Iselijk class battlecruisers had an original cost of £1,941 million. 30% of cost would be £0.528 million- or slightly more than my 1930 Humboldt class seaplane tender. 30% light displacement would of course mean 6,315tons of material.

10

Saturday, June 3rd 2006, 2:50am

"Cost" in this case is light displacement tons, which is what's produced by factories and consumed by building ships.

11

Saturday, June 3rd 2006, 7:56am

What about this bit?

Quoted

the vessel shall count against the Contracting Power's treaty allocations, and the contracting Power shall be liable for the vessel's actions.


I would assume that this refers to the nation purchasing the vessel/s but the liability bit leads me to suspect it isn't.

12

Saturday, June 3rd 2006, 12:05pm

The vessel counts against the owner's treaty allocations are they are liable for its actions until such a time as the buyer pays the amount in full.

Note that this is a minimum price.

13

Saturday, June 3rd 2006, 12:47pm

Exactly: it's a minimum price, and as RA says, until the buyer pays in full, the original owner is considered to still be the owner.

14

Saturday, June 3rd 2006, 11:11pm

Now your confusing me, liable till the owner pays 30% or 100%? It was my understanding that the ships can be sold for 30% of their orriginal cost and not transfered untill fully payed for.

Are you talking about swaps between CT nations or a CT nation and a non CT?

15

Sunday, June 4th 2006, 12:34am

I fail to see the possible cause for confusion.

The seller sells the ship for 30% (or -3% per year after) of its light displacement.

The buyer pays for the ship with the 30%( or -3%) and until the buyer has paid 30% the ship remains the property of the seller.

16

Sunday, June 4th 2006, 1:49am

There's no differentiation in the Treaty between selling to CT-member and non-member states as far as the cost goes, there IS, however, the provision for other member states to try to veto the sale.

17

Sunday, June 4th 2006, 3:55am

I was under the impression that the ships could not be transfered untill the ammount to be paid was paid in full.

Obviously that isn't the case.

18

Sunday, June 4th 2006, 11:34am

Quoted

I was under the impression that the ships could not be transfered untill the ammount to be paid was paid in full.


That is the case.

Please go and bang your head against a wall and slowly re-read what I wrote above.

19

Sunday, June 4th 2006, 12:26pm

Was that last comment really nessassary?

20

Sunday, June 4th 2006, 12:58pm

The point where there is some possibility for confusion is that the CT allows the transfer of possession to occur before the receiving country has completed taking ownership of the vessel. In that case (where Country B has paid less than the price of the vessel but country A has transferred the vessel to Country B's possession), the CT defines Country A as the vessel's owner and makes it responsible for any actions the new operator commits with it.