I like Turn-Based.

I don't consider RTS to be strategy games, considering, there is no real strategy, you just need to be fast and know already what you are going to do and how to do it. Once you know your buildings, you already know the order in which you have to build them and which units you need at first and then upgrade to better units using better buildings or whatever.

Turn based games allows you to think and really plan a strategy.

Never quite understood that argument from TBS fans to be honest, whenever I look at a guide or strategy discussion for a TBS game, it says "To achieve the best results in this and this particular area, you need to do following actions in the following order:"

And... Well, when any sort of construction is involved, I honestly don't see any way out of that. With all possible combinations, some ways to play will always be more efficient than the others.

That's called a "strategy"...

I prefer TBS, but can still only stand to play the fantasy ones like HoMM, AoW, Disciples and Eador.

I`m fan of RTS... the TBS whit the exeption of Heroes V, Warlords II & IV are boring for me... I like Starcraft(is my favourite), Age of empires, Warcraft, Halo Wars, Empire Earth, tom Clancy`s End War... :D

Hmm considering I've only played Civilisation II as my TBS example and a lot of different RTS I'm fairly certain I prefer RTS. No that I dislike civ2 its just that I like base building RTS better. If there is no base building I'm not really interested in playing it really though.

I just think RTS is a much better multiplayer experience because something is always happening instead of waiting for the other player. I mean you can call that thinking time but I think its much more fun to play RTS with several people instead.

But that's not quite true. Games like Europa Universalis, Pax Imperia & Homeworld do the opposite of of what almost every person who complain about RTSs specifically complain about.
Also, in any good RTS you need to be flexible. Having a basic understanding of build-order is important, yes, but the same is true for most TBSs, but if you just follow a build order to the letter then anything your opponent does "out of order" will screw you over. The trick to playing an RTS effectively (note that I'm not talking about the first generation of base-building RTSs here, those were rather simplistic) is to be flexible.
You could always try something with with simultaneous turns & a short turn limit. That would fix that complaint.

It really depends on what you want to do. If you want more deep strategic thinking, in most TBS games that aspect will be the most developped. Wargames usually are turn based. This is because AI has more time to think, like in chess.

When you want more action and quick thinking, RTS games will be better.

I love both genres, even though I am not particularily good at any of them. I'm decent.

I like both types. However if i had to pick one the choice would be TBS. It is the genre i tend to fall back on the most (mainly Civ, but it varies depending on mood).

I do like some of the older RTS games like the Settlers, Age of Empires, C&C Red Alert/Tiberian Sun, etc. But i never really liked the competitive side of RTS games. (Not to say i don't enjoy a match or two against friends once in a while, i just prefer RTS games which has a good singleplayer campaign/skirmish maps.)

As a TBS fan i have never really understood that argument either. :P

Yes, that's true, however, in RTS, achieving victory depends more on how fast you are with your hands than your strategy unlike TBS that no matter how slow you are, your strategy is what is going to allow you to achieve victory. I'm not saying that RTS you don't require strategy, however, you depend more of your reaction time than your strategy.

By that line, Doom is also a strategy game then, because you know what you are going to do (kill all the enemies) and you know how to do it (using the most destructive gun you have in your inventory).

So, what about real-time strategy games with active pause system?

You're trying to generalize, and yes, you are correct, there are RTS games where speed is an important factor. However, how fast you click is not more important than strategy - strategy always wins. There's always a ceiling to how fast you're able to play, there's not a ceiling to how good you are at strategising. The only real difference is that one approach rewards thinking on your feet and careful planning while another rewards careful planning only - it's up to you which approach do you prefer, but claiming that a well-made RTS doesn't have as much strategy involved as an RTS is a bit silly - and subjective.
That actually is strategy, yes. Doom is not called strategy game because it's not centered around having one. Real-time strategy games, on the other hand, are.

I'm more of a TBS person. If an RTS catches my interest thematically, I'll give it a try, but I generally don't enjoy them as much.

I like both but definitely prefer TBS

Total war series: TB world map (economy/strategy) and RT engagements (tactics).