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 · Practiced Mastery
Tolkien-licensed RTS with freeform base building and large-scale faction warfare.

Optimization · Practiced Mastery
The original 1994 RTS pitting orc and human bases against each other in Azeroth.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II leans Optimization (Practiced Mastery); Warcraft: Orcs & Humans leans Optimization (Practiced Mastery).
Same score on execution - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Moderate APM demands, forgiving unit control
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans
Clunky unit micro and click speed still matter
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II leans a little harder on reads, though the gap is small.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Human opponents in skirmish reward prediction
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans
Human multiplayer adds genuine build mind games
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans leans a little harder on variance, though the gap is small.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Mostly open information, light randomness
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans
Fog of war hides enemy composition
Same score on optimization - which means the number cannot separate them. The difference is in what each one asks of you.
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II
Economy, base layout, and faction counters drive wins
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans
Build orders and economy timing dominate
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
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II →
full breakdown
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans →