An interesting one is Apocalypse/Warlord (Warlord was published privately by designer Mike Hayes, subsequently Games Workshop published a smaller version called Apocalypse).

Overall, think Risk with Nukes, but army attacks are done in an interesting way. There can be any number of attackers and any number of defenders (i.e., no stacking limits) when an attack is made from one area into an adjacent one. The attacker decides how many armies, between 1 and the number available (but subject to a maximum of 6), s/he wishes to stake and the defender has to guess the amount (which is shown by a die placed at the relevant number). If the defender guesses wrong they lose one defending army and the attacker can elect to carry on or stop there (also gets a nuke for later use, but there we digress), though if there was only one defender the attacker moves in however many armies were staked. If the defender guesses right the attacker loses the number of armies staked. Because of the way the game's movement system works it is quite important how many armies end up where, so the defender has some real hard data to try and out-guess the attacker. No random elements, so you could claim it's "deterministic" and it certainly involves skill to work it to your advantage.

Different terrains will modify the attack: attacking from the sea the defender gets two shots at the right number, mountains can't be attacked with 4, 5 or 6 armies and cities can't be attacked with just 1.

Civilization just uses a "who has most wins" setup. Makes for pretty dull combat but since it isn't a combat game that's a *good* thing in that particular case.

Samurai has a simple "mostest wins", but getting the mostest takes several turns (no formal engagement until a piece is surrounded) over which you have to deploy your forces across a number of possible engagements. Or, in other words, it's a question of prioritizing one battle over another. Also it's generally the case that you can't redeploy forces to subsequent engagements.

In Go it's not to do with the size of the forces, but where they are relative to one another. One side must surround another to remove it, if that doesn't happen there's no conflict as such.