head to head
Neither is meaningfully harder - they pose close to the same test. The widest gap is optimization, and it is a single point.

Optimization · Practiced Mastery
Commanding counter-picked units against adapting human generals in large siege battles.

Optimization · Practiced Mastery
Tolkien-licensed RTS with freeform base building and large-scale faction warfare.
Conqueror's Blade leans Optimization (Practiced Mastery); The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II leans Optimization (Practiced Mastery).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Conqueror's Blade
Personal combat and unit micro matter in every siege
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Moderate APM demands, forgiving unit control
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Conqueror's Blade
Human commanders feint, flank and adapt across a siege
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Human opponents in skirmish reward prediction
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Conqueror's Blade
Little randomness - outcomes follow positioning and composition
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Mostly open information, light randomness
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Conqueror's Blade
Unit counters, doctrines and economy reward deep system knowledge
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Economy, base layout, and faction counters drive wins
A matching score does not mean a matching test. Two games can both sit at 10 on execution and demand completely different things of you - which is why the reasoning above matters more than the number beside it.
full breakdown
Conqueror's Blade →
full breakdown
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II →