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

Optimization · Mind & Math
A sloppy RTS still testing build orders and economy ahead of micro.

Optimization · Practiced Mastery
Tolkien-licensed RTS with freeform base building and large-scale faction warfare.
Empire Earth III leans Optimization (Mind & Math); The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II leans Optimization (Practiced Mastery).
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II leans a little harder on execution, though the gap is small.
Empire Earth III
Macro speed matters though far less than in tighter RTS peers
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.
Empire Earth III
Human opponents' timing attacks must be scouted and predicted
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.
Empire Earth III
Map starts and AI behaviour hold mild unknowns
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Mostly open information, light randomness
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Empire Earth III
Epoch timing and economy builds dominate outcomes
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
Empire Earth III →
full breakdown
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II →