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

Optimization · Pure Optimization
Engineering optimal Wanzer configurations and skill allocations to dominate scripted mech skirmishes.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
An original RPG system where engagement optimization and passive-stacking theory dominate hard-mode encounters.
Front Mission 1st: Remake leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Pillars of Eternity 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.
Front Mission 1st: Remake
Turn-based; no twitch; Wanzer part targeting is planning-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.
Front Mission 1st: Remake
Enemy AI is scripted per mission type
Pillars of Eternity
All AI opponents use fixed scripted behaviour trees
Front Mission 1st: Remake leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Front Mission 1st: Remake
Hit rates and shield proc randomness create meaningful combat variance
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.
Front Mission 1st: Remake
Wanzer part builds, weapon loadouts, and pilot skill allocation are the game
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.