Building comparison
head to head
Faces of WarvsThief II: The Metal Age
Neither is meaningfully harder - they pose close to the same test. The widest gap is reads, and it is a single point.
Faces of War
Optimization · Pure Optimization
A realistic WWII tactical squad-based strategy game about mission planning.
Thief II: The Metal Age
Optimization · Pure Optimization
Mastering fixed guard circuits and tool inventories to ghost sprawling levels without a trace.
Faces of War leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Thief II: The Metal Age leans Optimization (Pure Optimization).
Faces of WarThief II: The Metal Age
Axis by axis
Execution3 vs 3
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Faces of War
direct unit control requires some precision
Thief II: The Metal Age
Fine arrow placement and rope climbing require care, not twitch
Reads2 vs 1
Faces of War leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
Faces of War
AI and human opponents shift tactics somewhat
Thief II: The Metal Age
Mechanist guards run scripted beats, never adapting to tactics
Variance3 vs 3
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Faces of War
combat outcomes have random elements
Thief II: The Metal Age
Camera placements and patrol timing are hidden on first entry
Optimization8 vs 9
Thief II: The Metal Age leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Faces of War
squad tactics and mission planning deep
Thief II: The Metal Age
Loot routing and tool economy are fully optimisable once learned
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.