I am a methodical chess player (https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/types-of-chess-players) and I tend to work things out as I go along. I don't know any openings and tend to improvise the opening and the middlegame.
For a player like me, is opposite castling a good or a bad choice? I took a look at the tactics involved in such a game (https://www.chess.com/forum/view/livechess/attack-on-opposite-side-castled-king) and it seems that you need a high tempo to perform well. For someone who never follows a strict plan and improvises, is this an advantage or a disadvantage? Should I castle on the same side and aim for a slower game with less pawn involvement?
Say, for example, my queenside is under attack and the opponent has castled kingside. Castling kingside would reduce pressure and allow me to recollect my thoughts. Castling queenside would allow me to put pressure on the opponent's kingside and form a counterattack quickly. For each of these possibilities, the play style must change, but does castling opposite the opponent actually give me any advantage apart from aggresion? Possibly, it would allow my bishops to take a long diagonal against the opposing king, while same-side castling would require more knight action.