>Personally I don't see a fundamental difference. ItB also requires you minimize losses and maximize gains so that you can equip more impressive weaponry.
I’ve formed the impression that ItB algorithmically makes every round solvable to the extent that
- your mechs never need to take damage, except self-inflicted
- your mechs/pilots never have to die (!)
- you take at most a small hit to a city (can easily be healed)
Maybe I was just very very good or lucky at the game, but I really felt that even for the rounds that seemed very dangerous for my pilots and mechs, after thinking long enough, it turned out the game gave a very interesting way out. And the weapons you buy aren't really strictly better, they just give your more options. Which can make the game harder, as the calculation takes them all into account for forming a solution, but can also make the game easier, when your options heavily overlap and thus the calculation can no longer create situations that are solvable in just one way.
There were rounds in ItB where I could see a way for the enemy to really screw me up, but the AI did not take that route of action. Notably there is no "Hard" mode in that game either - difficulty is decided by how complicated the moveset of your mechs is to comprehend. (= Which chess pieces are in the puzzle.)
In Deep Forces the first levels felt similar, as some enemies also just did not act. But in that boss level I had to choose 1 out of 4 troopers to die straight-up round 1. I think in Xcom it’s interesting that you can play a kinda formation, knowing which troopers are more at risk and which are the valuable backline. Jumping in and immediately having random troopers in grave danger is, idk, makes me not even try to care about the names and loadout of my guys.