There's nothing wrong with having some maps without roof access and not every roof needs to be accessible on those that do, but I think the future of battlefield is expanding upon that spirit of "if it instinctively feels like I should be able to do it, I should be able to do it."
Cairo, imo, just begs to have roof access and I don't subscribe to the notion that you need to have helis to balance roofers. My OP outlines numerous viable counters that can be employed to counter them. I think once you've personally had the satisfaction of blowing the roof out from under a sniper you'll come around to my way of thinking.
Remember how Battlefield Bad Company 2 had such "amazing" destruction? It was really cool to blow up a building to the point it was nothing more than a pile of rumble. At least, until vehicles flattened every single building on the map and then proceeded to farm infantry players. Battlefield 4's Siege of Shanghai had the destroyable skyscraper. Yet in similar fashion, the map became worse when it was destroyed.
That's why the more modern additions left a skeleton of a building standing, so players had at least some form of cover. It wasn't because the game couldn't technically support destruction. Battlefield V solved this quite cleverly by allowing players to construct cover at preset locations.
I'm not against destroying a roof to get rid of a camper on most maps, but on Siege of Cairo, there's absolutely no good reason to allow rooftop access, other than a few preselected spots. It's a map that's specifically designed with lanes and corridors in mind. It's really a non-issue and at launch there will be plenty of open maps where you'll be able to camp or destroy rooftops all you want.
