@JECE -
After reading what appears to be your main argument in the webdip threads, I have to say I do not agree with it. The main thrust of your argument is that basically in a solo situation, the smaller of the big powers should actively make it so the minor powers can grow or give them security (points-incentive and front-line placement I believe were the terms you used) while maneuvering to make a solo bid of his own in the future.
While this works in theory, it does not hold up in reality. Often, and I would wager even most of the time, parts of the board are locked up in a solo push. We all know the SW-NE stalemate line. Many times we've seen Munich to St. Pete locked up, with the only action remaining in the Mediterranean/Iberia.
Imagine the following situation:
Austria holds 16 SCs (Warsaw, Moscow, Sev, Anatolia, the entire Balkans, Italy).
England holds 14 SCs (St. Pete, Scandinavia, Germany, Home SCs, Bel, Hol, Paris, Brest)
France holds 4 SCs (Tunis, Portugal, Spain, Marseilles).
During this situation, in a common occurrence, St. Petersburg and Munich have been stalemated and Austria is advancing west through the Mediterranean in a solo push.
Now, in WTA, logic dictates that England stops any and all aggression against France, and goes for a draw, as otherwise France easily throws a solo to Austria.
The problem becomes, in PPSC, England now has a *points-incentive* to throw the game to Austria. Given that a large chunk of the board is stalemated, England cannot count on changing the situation from Munich to St. Petersburg. That means he has to look at what's left, and he sees that using the chart you posted in the webdip threads, a 3way draw would net him 2380 points. However, if he were to attack France, he might gain another couple SCs before Austria soloed, netting him anywhere from 2940 points to 3360 points depending on what he took.
Austria has every reason to encourage this, and England has literally *NO* points-incentive NOT to attack France. There's little flexibility left in the game, and now PPSC is telling him to take the max number of points - which means stab France and let Austria solo.
What can France do about this? Literally nothing. Austria wants to maximize points by soloing, and England wants to maximize points by getting the most SCs, so he can't play them off on each other. In the end, PPSC dictates to England to throw the game.
THIS is the situation people think of when they dont' like PPSC. Simply hand-waving it away by saying "avoid stalemate lines" or something like that isn't a valid response. Sure, it can be done - sometimes, but let's be honest, people seek out the stalemate lines for security. And saying someone should avoid playing a certain way just to make a point system valid isn't right either. If you have to avoid a certain style of play just so a point-system works when you approach the end game, I'd say the point system needs adjustment. And this is what we get with PPSC and stalemate lines.