The new game engine for Generals 2 is Frostbite 2.0 - everyone knows this and the engine's talent for destruction, as much touted during development of Battlefield 3. But the question is, will BioWare Victory take advantage of the opportunity presented before them? With complex destruction, the tactical opportunities in Generals 2 have expanded greatly, as fundamentally tactics revolves around cover and the destruction of cover. With Frostbite 2.0, it provides the opportunity to implement a complex cover system.
With this cover system, it has the opportunity to not be a binary system. Rather, have different cover values (orange / green for Company of Heroes) for hard and soft cover, the difference between the two fundamentally being (besides the protection value difference between the hard and soft cover) the resilience of it against destruction. This allows tactical warfare to be far more dynamic. Do I flank the cover, OR, do I have enough resources to destroy it with grenades? Do I have anti-tank units to destroy the cover? Do I have a tank or artillery?
In addition, tanks do not have to be exempt from cover. Instead, why not give cover to tanks? Obviously not having tanks take cover behind sandbags, but rather introduce the hull-down mechanic as cover. For example, a ditch or the incline of the hill could actually have a cover value for the tank (obviously the incline of the hill would have disadvantages and require positioning, first so the tank can still fire over it, and second so it is negated by the damage bonus provided by the high ground), meaning rather than tank spamming and kiting other tanks there is an emphasis on positioning and actual tactics.
Of course, suppression could also be implemented, but that would change much of how the game is played, and in my opinion is not needed. But it's possible, and you're free to disagree.