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
Grand strategy wargame mixing turn-based empire play with real-time battles.

Optimization · Pure Optimization
A mythic-power fantasy where stacking mythic abilities and prestige chains produce near-godlike optimization results.
Medieval II: Total War leans Optimization (Pure Optimization); Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous 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.
Medieval II: Total War
real-time battle micro is modest
Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous
Real-time-with-pause eliminates any twitch skill requirement
Same score on reads - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
Medieval II: Total War
campaign AI is exploitable and mappable
Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous
All enemies follow scripted AI; crusade campaign is deterministic
Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
Medieval II: Total War
fog of war and event triggers hide some state
Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous
Mythic ability unlock order and hidden enemy resistances add unknown layers
Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous leans a little harder on optimization, though the gap is small.
Medieval II: Total War
economy, unit counters, and campaign map strategy dominate
Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous
Mythic path stacking and Lich-specific build chains reach absurd optimization ceilings
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.