Jaguar GR.1/A, Su-7B/BKL, Q-5/Q-5A, Harriers. More leniently, the FJ-4B, F-1, G.91YS, F-84s. And now the Buccaneer S.2A, and probably the A-7D too.
All of these planes are attackers by design, with fighting being a secondary ability. Yet in-game they're all classed as fighters. And now, we have the A-7D and Buccaneer S.2, both likely classed as fighters. Why? It makes them cost more to spawn, lies about their role, and for certain ones (like the 10.0 missile-less Q-5A and Su-7BKL), makes them useless as the airspawn would give them something to be able to survive rather than just lowering their BR. The only jet attackers are the A-4s and the Sk 60B, even though we have planes that aren't even able to carry missiles that are definitively attackers, or some planes that could be more like the A-4 – slower and less effective fighters at a higher BR, given attacker roles. (tangent) After all, you could make the A-4B a fighter and put it at 8.0, but that's stupid. So why not do that for the Harriers? Put them at 10.0, make them attackers. (/tangent)
You might say that the airspawn would make them OP, but not every attacker has an airspawn in-game, and they wouldn't need one. Giving the Harriers airspawns and a higher BR would fix 9.7 MM, as them being 10.0 with a head-start would be the thing they need to do some work or hit some bases. You might say that it's because they can dogfight pretty well, but that doesn't matter. The AD-2/4 and AM-1 fight really well for their BR and they're attackers. The AU-1 is a heavier F4U-4B and still gets a number done and is an attacker. The Il-10s and Il-2Ms with VYas are mean too. Even lower tier stuff like the Yak-2 KABB, Br.693, and A-36 are mean fighters first and shit attackers second (less for the Apache tbh).
And this extends to props too. There are a multitude of props that would benefit, even just in the "neat" factor, with an attacker class. Me 410 /U4s, Me 262A-1/U4, the Bf 110G-2, the Mosquitos, the Tempest Vickers P for fucks sake, the Firecrest, Firebrand and Fireflies, the Pe-3s, the Ki-109, the Ki-102, the Ki-108. Maybe even the Yak-9T/K/3T, maybe the Fw 190F-8 and Typhoons.
This is my final, and most out-there suggestion, but what if they added a new "strike fighter" classification? In-game, there are some vehicles with "half" roles. Multiple vehicles have different roles with the same general category, like how "frontline bomber", "medium bomber", "long-range bomber" are all filtered under "bombers". Well, in naval, you have stuff like the Ikoma, which is the colour of a cruiser but the shape of a battleship, and called "Battlecruiser". You have ships that are the colour of destroyers, but aren't, called Frigates. How about, if they made a separate classification called "strike fighter", which was the colour of attacker, but the shape of fighter? It would be the small angled square rather than the proper rhombus, but would be green like an attacker. It would have attacker spawn cost, attacker classification for tasks and rewards, but wouldn't have an airspawn. This would be the differentiation, and would be given to planes primarily for attack but based on a fighter, or purpose built attackers with high fighter capabilities. Everything I named could be this new "strike fighter".
Source: Original link
© Post "Why is Gaijin allergic to jet attackers?" for game War Thunder.
Top 10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2020
2020 will have something to satisfy classic and modern gamers alike. To be eligible for the list, the game must be confirmed for 2020, or there should be good reason to expect its release in that year. Therefore, upcoming games with a mere announcement and no discernible release date will not be included.
Top 15 NEW Games of 2020 [FIRST HALF]
2020 has a ton to look forward to...in the video gaming world. Here are fifteen games we're looking forward to in the first half of 2020.