lolol, i'll bite...
First, using forts under the assumption that you can choose to skimp on defense is completely counterproductive. If I'm building forts it's because I want more defense and can't possibly train enough army or keep enough at home. If I want offense I'll build TGs or stables, train offense, and if both of those are in place I set up my province to be able to train more offense, rather than build forts. If I need defense, and only if I need defense, I build forts. Your notion of using forts to reduce the number of defense specs used is something that will kill pretty much any province... you'll get hit just as much, and each nightstrike and combat losses will drop your defense even more than they would without the forts.
Game is too dynamic to care about static points, whether you're in war or not... especially if you're orc or undead.Truly optimal static point is often surprisingly close to 1:1 between TGs and Forts for a higher offensive elite race (orc/undead actually get the best static numbers with *more* forts than TGs), but all that yelling about how forts are bad *does* have somewhat of a point. Always aim to be at least a bit "too heavy" on the TGs at the cost of being a bit "too light" on the forts - once stuff starts changing like crazy in war it'll leave you in better shape.
So with all of those % buildings, do you think forts are still good?Also dwarf attacker wants to look at having good hospitals (unless cleric, and even the maybe 5-10%), and probably some solid banks too. Solid WT's also a life saver - and notice how all these use those good % effects. If you build for a bit better durability you might find you only have 20% land to put into straight offense mods... and then you probably just go 20% TGs, or 15% TG 5% Forts. A "breaker" you won't be, and 100 opa isn't gonna be your thing... but if you can just keep hitting with about 80%+ of the "breaker's" OPA, you shouldn't wear down as fast, and so you'll start carrying the load later in the war. Again, talk to your kingdom about taking on a role like that - if your kingdom only ever fights min time wars, you've got a poor race choice this age, but do the best to make a big hitter out of it anyway.
Anyway, last war I did build forts, and they made the difference between being 2x hit and 3x hit... but I didn't build them until after I got ghetto-chained, so I still had some defense left and huge ME mods from being hit so often and so badly, and I was pimping 20%+ TG on top of that. In that situation things change way too frequently to give a damn about static numbers, but I surely wasn't going to be able to train defense fast enough to get to the level I wanted. Being able to use all of my generals for hits and still having elites at home helped my decision to use forts, because the kingdom I was fighting did operate on the notion that they could use forts to replace defense, only to find their forts worthless once all their defense deserted, and their tendency to always suicide. Had I been fighting a good kingdom I would have had to worry about nightstrikes in that spot, but fortunately they stopped trying to put any ops on me after they thought I was down.
Moral of the story... forts are a defensive building, not an offensive one. If you want good defense and your offense is good enough, then by all means use forts. If you want more offense, stick with the buildings that mod offense and after that, economy so that you can keep training offfense or defense rather than hope for forts to work.