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 · Pure Optimization
A squad-based post-apocalyptic tactics game where AP efficiency and burst-fire builds determine mission success.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
An original RPG system where engagement optimization and passive-stacking theory dominate hard-mode encounters.
Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Pillars of Eternity leans Optimization (Pure Optimization).
Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel leans a little harder on execution, though the gap is small.
Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel
Real-time optional combat mode adds positioning pressure over pure turn-based
Pillars of Eternity
Real-time-with-pause removes all twitch pressure from the player
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel
All enemy squads run fixed scripted patrol and engagement routines
Pillars of Eternity
All AI opponents use fixed scripted behaviour trees
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel
Enemy squad compositions and map layouts are hidden on first approach
Pillars of Eternity
Hidden enemy immunities and ability distributions require investigation
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel
Squad AP optimization and burst-fire perk stacking define dominant strategies
Pillars of Eternity
Per-encounter ability management and passive stacking define trial-of-iron mastery
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.