head to head
Neither is harder. They score identically on all four axes, so the difference between them is in kind, not degree.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
Maximizing Emblem synergies and inherited skills to dismantle precisely scripted enemy maps.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
A 3rd Edition ruleset combat puzzle where multi-classing and feat selection unlock dominant strategies.
Fire Emblem Engage leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Icewind Dale II leans Optimization (Pure Optimization).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fire Emblem Engage
Turn-based; Engage ring timing is menu-driven not reactive
Icewind Dale II
Real-time-with-pause negates twitch requirements
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fire Emblem Engage
Scripted enemy phases never adapt to player tendencies
Icewind Dale II
Scripted enemy routines offer nothing to read or predict adaptively
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fire Emblem Engage
Hit and avoid stats tighten variance; Engage mechanics are reliable
Icewind Dale II
3E feat combinations and hidden enemy resistances create unknown-information layers
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Fire Emblem Engage
Emblem pairing, skill inheritance, and unit positioning are exhaustively solvable
Icewind Dale II
3rd Edition feat optimization and multi-class architecture dominate success
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.