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
RTS where you splice animals into custom armies before battle begins.

Optimization · Practiced Mastery
Tolkien-licensed RTS with freeform base building and large-scale faction warfare.
Impossible Creatures leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II leans Optimization (Practiced Mastery).
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II leans a little harder on execution, though the gap is small.
Impossible Creatures
Standard RTS micro and army control
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Moderate APM demands, forgiving unit control
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Impossible Creatures
Human opponents counter your creature picks
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Human opponents in skirmish reward prediction
Same score on variance - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Impossible Creatures
Scouting hidden enemy combinations
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Mostly open information, light randomness
Impossible Creatures leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Impossible Creatures
Creature-combining army design is deeply solvable
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Economy, base layout, and faction counters drive wins
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.
full breakdown
Impossible Creatures →
full breakdown
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II →