Well, you could always have a starfighter whose manoeuvring thrusters are more efficient in one direction than another...
I was actually thinking about that after posting, and it is a valid point. Now that I think about it, there was a concept I was working on a while back where this might have in fact been an issue.
for example it might be easier to mount thrusters pointing under the nose than above, in this case a fighter will climb better than dive given even rear thrust capability
There's a difference between pitch and climb if we really want to be technical, though that's also a possibility. If we want to sustain forward velocity during maneuvers but have mass restrictions, it may be a viable option to mount more powerful rockets under the starfighter than to have symmetrically mounted engines of equal power. This almost makes those musings on space combat and WWII combat sound realistic, eh? This fighter will pitch faster but has a very limited sustained turning velocity, or this one will hold a turn very well on one axis but, by executing a roll and pitching in the negative of their turn axis you can escape easily, etc...
Should that be the case, wouldn't it be better to invest in separate rates for each axis/degree of freedom? For an asymetric fighter (as in no bi-lateral symmetry), I may have a symmetrical +/- pitch rate, but my yaw rates are uneven, and my roll responses are also a little lopsided due to where I can place maneuver thrusters.
