Fortify effectiveness should be based on your actual military power vs your opponent.

[Avakael]

The idea behind fortify makes sense, but currently it is clearly broken- an automatic 10% no matter what you actually have to fight back with, even if that is nothing, prolongs wars; and someone who dominates in all but one area (and we're all thinkings jets I imagine) should be better at resisting, or else why bother trying to maintain troop/tank/ship levels after you've lost in the air?

 

An alternative; fortify still exists, but it's effectiveness depends on how many troops, tanks, aircraft, ships, and spies you have compared to your enemy.

 

Having 0-33% of a unit type compared to your enemy provides 0 resistance;

Having 34-80% of a unit type compared to your enemy provides 1 resistance;

Having 80-120% of a unit type compared to your enemy provides 2 resistance;

Having 121-180% of a unit type compared to your enemy provides 3 resistance;

Having 181%+ of a unit type compared to your enemy provides 4 resistance;

 

Fortifying would therefore provide between 0 and 20 extra resistance depending on the actual operational capacity of your military.

[Kastor]

Why? It helps the person winning destroy more infra.

[Avakael]

fortify should cost money and/or resources

 

everything else in war has an associated gas, munitions steel/aluminium cost, why not fortify?

This is also quite valid.

[Darth Revan]

Why? It helps the person winning destroy more infra.

It already does that. 

[Biel]

Why? It helps the person winning destroy more infra.

This