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

Optimization · Pure Optimization
A 3rd Edition ruleset combat puzzle where multi-classing and feat selection unlock dominant strategies.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
Racing to secure relics and optimize unit upgrade chains in a hostile hex-grid wargame.
Icewind Dale II leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War 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.
Icewind Dale II
Real-time-with-pause negates twitch requirements
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War
Hex turn-based; no physical precision ceiling
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
Icewind Dale II
Scripted enemy routines offer nothing to read or predict adaptively
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War
AI factions follow fixed expansion doctrines without adaptive modelling
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Icewind Dale II
3E feat combinations and hidden enemy resistances create unknown-information layers
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War
Random relic placement and event spawns add meaningful hidden unknowns
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Icewind Dale II
3rd Edition feat optimization and multi-class architecture dominate success
Warhammer 40,000: Gladius - Relics of War
Unit upgrade routing and resource building sequencing are deeply solvable
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.