Just hold the stalemate lines until the other side relents.

If you are trying to force the stab, consider stepping back a bit. That is, retreat to an active stalemate position assuming their is one (that is, where the nations can't advance but one side has to order attacks to hold their position).
That way the more powerful nation on the other side can kill off the small nation without danger of you killing him.

yeah you should wait those fuckers out.

the way i see it, i am more patient than everyone i've ever met, so if you are too, just wait them out.

Thanks for the input folks. (I am the small one holding on for survival)

We're thinking about putting a pool together to bet on when they'll finally give in to the draw. :) Currently - S1910

I firmly believe in not eliminating a small country that was crucial in setting up the stalemate. That is the one part of the webdiplomacy implementation that I hate and the one part that makes me not want to play. The only benefit is getting a bigger share of the pot (points and ghost ratings.) But it doesn't change the outcome of the actual game which is that no one won.

@Alderia: Do you mean being able to offer a draw that DOESN"t inlcude a minor nation? playdiplomacy.com can do that, but i'm not convinced that it makes sense.

The only time I've ever sought to pare down a game (i.e. reduce the number of people drawing) is if that (minor) country being eliminated has made no attempt to communicate w/ anyone else or unless I thought it would give me a chance to solo. I've no qualms w/ having five people in a draw if the small countries are strategically placed, they continue communicating and it becomes a true stalemate where everyone is too wary to risk tipping the scales.

It's nice to draw.

Have to admit I quite like closing down a game. Not for the agressive point-based reasons, more because I don't think a game is finished until everyone justifies their place. As part of being a minor nation whilst clearly you should try and stop anyone solo-ing, your main issue is to make yourself irremovable!

LanGaidin, five would have been nice, but 6 was a bit much for me!!!!

I agree Otto; looks like we'll have another of those. Two legitimate 6 country draws.... ouch.

both with german leaders too

@jbalcorn, no. I mean you have 3 countries opposing 1 big country. The 1 big country is on the way to winning but for one of the 3 others fighting a retreating action slowing him down allowing the other 2 to form the stalemate lines. Then the other 2 allow the small 1 to die off now that they've formed stalemate lines that don't include him.

The small one could have allowed the biggest country to win, but instead played an important role in stopping him, merely to be sacrificed for no good reason other than a "better draw".

@ Alderian. That would massively suck, and admittedly I don't think I would have agreed to eliminate the third party. He would have deserved to partake in the draw.

Well, it has happened to me twice and I certainly won't ever do it to anybody else.

I will happily eliminate an opponent before drawing as part of a 3 country alliance. That's entirely different. Eliminating a small ally as part of a stab for a run at a solo, sure, if need be. But not simply to "improve" a draw. A draw is a draw.