I think I have noticed a pattern in my games in which I have castled long and my opponent castles short, then we both pawn storm to attack the kings. Typically this happens after I play the Scandinavian defense or Caro Kann.
It feels like I am often losing these battles, and I wonder if there is in inherent disadvantage in this structure? Is this a known thing?
It depends on what style and rank you are.
Most amateur players like to go straight for the king in a fast attempt to secure checkmate, using and bringing out early the bishops and queens. However, doing these moves uncalculated can harm your queen and your position. There are many kingside attacks, but if you study one well, the sky is the limit!
Queenside attacks are better for people who are more patient and who focus on their position more. If you get an advantage on the queen's side, you will, if you play well, win the game.
All in all, it does not matter which side you attack. However, you must understand how you play, and not guess your mover.
I believe it is a matter of tempo. Usually, when the opponents do castles on different sides wins, the one whose pawns reach the opponent’s king first. Also, it is crucial that your style is attacking and consider the tactics well. If you want to understand if this position is good for you or not, you must explore a lot of games with strong grandmasters playing that debut to understand that position better.
