What's really stupid is making statements like this, when you don't know anything about history, beyond a bare understanding of the Maginot Line. Fortresses existed as strong points of defence, usually with all round cover, throughout history. And even in the era of "modern" warfare played an important role.
This is from the US military history of the Lorraine Campaign under 3rd Army in late 1944. A little history background for you. Metz is in the Alsace-Lorraine region, and was annexed by Germany after the 1870 Franco-Prussian War. So in 1902 the fort was first built by Germany. I'm not sure if the fort was fought over in the First World War, but potentially this fort and many others in the area covered by the Western Front could have been defended by one side, captured and then defended by the other side with the attacks coming from the opposite direction.
After WWI, Germany had to return Alsace-Lorraine to France, and the French further developed the fort, and defended it in 1940. The whole region was again annexed by Germany after the Fall of France, and they re-occupied the fort they originally built. Of no importance until they were defeated in Normandy and their forces fled from France in disarray. Then the fort, and others like it, became important to holdup the Allied advance while they regrouped shattered divisions and strengthened defences along the Rhine.
Fort Driant was attacked in late September 1944 by US forces, who withdrew after two weeks, without capturing the fort. It was the first defeat that Patton's army suffered since landing in France. The following account of the first day gives an indication of the difficulties they were going to face:
The account of the combat in Driant is very reminiscent of the accounts of the Battle of Verdun in WWI. Developments in technology over the intervening 30 years made little difference, and victory came down to close combat in underground passages. The US weren't prepared to sustain the losses that both France and Germany suffered at Verdun, and withdrew.
Fort Driant wasn't a single fort, but part of a series of forts surrounding the city of Metz. Taken as a whole they were meant to provide an entire fortified area. There was no continuous tunnels, trenches, barbed wire etc linking the forts together to form a "line". This wasn't necessary. But the artillery from one fort could be brought to bear on attackers around another fort, and the forts were close enough and positioned in such a way to restrict manoeuvre so that a force couldn't easily surround and attack each fort in isolation.
These remained important even in a world with mobile forces and air power, when the stronghold had a strategic position that wasn't easily by-passed because of rivers and hills, and cities like Metz were located on main roads and railways.
And Metz also wasn't a single fortified city, but part of a number of similarly fortified cities in the region, like Verdun and Nancy - that had been the subject of conflict for many centuries. They were the fore-runner of the Maginot Line, as a defensive system to defend the region, and as mentioned to defend France at certain times, and Germany at others. It wasn't stupidity that made successive governments and military leaders adopt an all-round defense of the fortifications, but to prevent attackers being able to simply envelop the cities and attack from "the rear", even though they knew that if the lost the city completely then the forts could be used against them in the future.
So - nonsense that all fortifications must be a "line" along the border of a province, and can only possibly be used to defend in one direction and therefore by one country. In fact, those sort of defences on their own would have been stupid. Any penetration of the "line" would mean the whole defenses would collapse. The French planners who built the Maginot Line were not so stupid, they incorporated some measure of all-round defence in the main line, defences in depth and strongholds in the rear.
In my opinion, most forts in HOI represent the fortified cities/towns, and correctly represent these. Only the Maginot Line itself causes significant issues for gameplay. The Event which reduces the forts level once France is defeated adequately deals with this. Germany can use Maginot to provide some defence, but would have to invest alot of IC to make it back to the level of 1940 but facing the opposite way.
Edit: Sorry, also meant to mention. Metz wasn't by any means unique. The campaign map of France at the start of Sept 1944 shows the Allies controlling nearly all northern France, and the Rhone valley from Marseilles nearly to Lyon. But a very long way behind the front lines, Germany still controlled Brest, Lorient, St. Nazaire and Le Havre. All four port cities had been fortified to protect them from attack from inland, as well as from amphibious assault. The Allies found overcoming the fortifications at Brest very difficult (rather like the similar problems Germany had taking Tobruk a couple of years earlier). They had to divert alot of forces and supplies to the battle, and decided to bypass the other ports, leaving small forces behind to contain the German garrisons.
Forts do need work, but not to make them directional, but make them more significant. I couldn't consistently simulate the UK 8th Army holding up Rommel at El Alamein, nor have a city like Tobruk hold out for any length of time. Only a Maginot level of fortifications seemed to make any noticeable difference. And forts and digging in bonus need to use supplies, not IC (factories), and the lower levels be quicker to build.
. On the by, I'm just trying to give credit where it's due - deffo not trying to 'suck up' - afaik, I don't have anything to gain from showing appreciation .png){kind=avatar}
