I've never understood that. How is taking over a fort in the middle of the wilderness supposed to grant one of the sides control over an entire hold? It could weaken the enemy's military forces in that area perhaps, but no more than that.

It's strange.

Maybe the Fort provides all the soldiers, a lot of soldiers=control.

I'll tell you why:

11.11.11

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it fortifies the capital?

Again its all because of the cut content, instead of the forts we were supposed to attack the cities, just like we did in battle of whiterun (stormcloak side) but the civil war became too big and dominated the rest of the questlines so they replaced it with these stupid forts missions.

Taking over a fort meant making it easier to take over the hold.

They don't have absolute control of the hold (the fact opposition force camps spring up after proves that) but if you wipe out the main enemy garrison of a certain area, generally you have control. What would you suggest instead?

Skyrim + set release date = 11/11/11

I always thought of it as After we Secured the fort, they made an assault on the holds capital while I was sent ahead to prepare the next fort.

Something gamers do not seem to get is "just because we did not see it, does not mean it did not happen"

why cant the devs make a cut content dlc that would be awesome and make skyrim the way it should have been?

This is not one of those cases, we're the Dragonborn were supposed to see this stuff. but its like i said the cut content is the issue.