It's hard to know because chess isn't solved. We don't know if chess, when played perfectly, is a draw. In fact, we don't even know it's not a win for black. And most non-trivial variants have had exponentially less work put into solving them than chess. Indeed, chess isn't solved even for some very strong positions. e.g. I have never seen any proof that giving white 7 Queens at the start and a row of pawns in front against the normal starting position is winning for white. +50? Sure, but not Mate in N moves. There is actually no absolute proof that white has a winning strategy even with a ton of queens.
So you can see the issue here. Any chess variant with a ton of pieces that is remotely balanced and doesn't have obvious winning strategies (like in chess with the knights replaced with 2,5 leapers where white has mate in 1 from the starting position. Perhaps the only situation where a 2,5 leaper is actually useful).
I noticed that sometimes in the case of a forced mate there is just one line of best moves.
For instance in this case the line shown is the only line, in which every move is a best move as if on move 1 black was to move the king to the g file that would blunder a mate in 1 and any other moves white could play would also lead to a slower checkmate.
In this position however there are a lot of different move sequences that would involve both players playing best moves, in terms of maintaining the book draw, so it looks like this position should take a larger search tree to solve by brute force than the previous position.
So what I wonder is whether in general variants that are forced wins might be easier to solve, using brute force ,than variants that are draws with best play of similar complexity.