you used the concept of civilian morale to reinforce your idea that an empty patch of ground should award points, more points than a building.
i say that's not even close to reality.
you say giving streets any more value or effect than a patch of ground or a building is micromanagement.
i say giving them a point value and making them have an effect on structure down times or re-supply times, is closer to reality and validates your idea of subsequent bombings having value as well as your large formation idea. it would also be the case for railroads and rail yards. destroy a road or block it with something that takes time to clear, and you delay the ability to re-supply and rebuild.
would it be easier to envision if destructible ground and building rubble existed?
I envision your idea just fine. I just think it's more coding than necessary unless some more complex ideas come to play, which I'm all for.
Ok, I'll admit that morale may not have been the best way to describe this concept and is not as much of a factor as infrastructure destruction. The idea was that when faced with this kind of destruction survival and rescue become primary concerns. Continued bombing forces a shift in labor allocation to emergency services and demoralizes/reduces the working population, which affects production at EVERY level.
Anyhow, I have no problem with the roads having more value than the grass except that I wouldn't want to see them becoming the key focus for a heavy bomber. If bomb accuracy/dispersal pattern was corrected as you spoke of, it wouldn't be a problem at all.