Speaking of which, maybe something could be added to the game where bombers will bomb your place before a raid, therefore causing large patches of random flames and all of your members taking some kind of damage,
Unavoidable RNG kills? My fake difficulty sense is tingling!
I'd suggest the following siege system improvements. First, there isn't almost any point in prolonging sieges right now. I suggest that sieges require so much police attention that other safehouses accumulate heat much slower. Also, The Man can't have more than one SERIOUS siege at the time because of this (smaller attacks are possible though). The media loves to keep an eye on the siege and successfully defending for a long time will have positive impact on the issues as the public starts to realize how ridiculous and unfounded the police/army siege is (especially if you have the Liberal Guardian running). While the Liberals defending against the siege will obviously be unable to do any liberal activism or fundraising (Internet-based activities included, no connection for terrorists you know), they will slowly gain juice for being under siege. A squad must be designated to be the safehouse guards - they are the ones who will engage in combat against enemy probes and other such incursions.
When under siege, your liberals are inside the safehouse, while the attackers keep a safe distance. However, they want the liberals destroyed, so they will occasionally send sneaky probe parties, intended to cause some damage, probe the defences and perhaps hurt a liberal or two, towards the safehouse. This results in a slightly modified standard combat (single combat, not raid style) where your liberals are faced with a medium-sized enemy force, which will retreat after receiving some casualties. A possibility would be to have the probe conservatives destroy liberal infrastructure if not defeated soon enough (perhaps an option would be not to risk liberals to fight them?) - safehouse improvements, rations and possibly even funds could be lost. The worst case scenario would be that the siege fortification will be pierced - the siege will turn into a site raid, which would, under the proposed system, be far worse than a siege (as it should be). On the other hand, killing people from these probe forces will weaken the conservative siege. Liberals will fire from fortified positions (an additional safehouse improvement available after siege fortification) so conservatives will have a lower chance to hit them (perhaps a fixed amount converted into dodge skill, and each liberal uses whichever is better, that amount or their natural dodge).
Sieges should have a strength variable, representing the resources and manpower channeled in the fight by conservatives. Strong sieges will send many probe parties (may pose a challenge, but successfully fighting them will also weaken the siege) and will use special equipment like bombers and tanks. Also, should the siege turn into a raid, strong sieges will be harder to destroy. Sieges will eventually weaken as their probe parties are repelled. Liberals can directly hurt the siege by sending a counterattack squad - a temporary site that represents the conservative siege camp is available for raiding. It should be possible to raid the site even from the sieged safehouse, but as the conservatives see the liberals coming, the enemy will be alarmed immediately. So, for the best result, attack from behind. Sieges will slowly regenerate their strength if they receive no damage for a while - also, successful anti-liberal sabotage will give them more faith in their success and increase their strength.
Once the enemy is weak enough, they can't send probe parties anymore. However, they might attempt a final push - sending the rest of their manpower to crush the safehouse. This force may be slightly stronger than a probe party, but they won't retreat (until very heavy casualties perhaps). Liberals can, again, use their fortifications. Once the final push is crushed, the siege is over for now, and the conservatives must muster more forces for a new siege. Another possible ending to a siege is simply crushing the siege camp when it has been weakened enough. A crushed siege is a major victory for the liberal agenda.
And what about bombers? There should be a way to defend against them. Would an AA gun upgrade for safehouses be too showy? A bomb shelter wouldn't, but it could only prevent damage to people, not infrastructure. A way to counteract bombers would be nice - perhaps sabotaging them at the siege camp would prevent them from acting?
And some suggestions for safehouse upgrades:
* Fortifying for siege should be a tad more expensive, as the proposed siege system is quite liberal-friendly
* Additional fortifications that are even more expensive, but give a defensive bonus against probe parties (alternatively, safehouses can be siege-fortified by default, and the siege fortification upgrade gives this effect)
* Booby traps are ridiculous in their current state. They could sometimes hurt probe parties, making them easier to destroy. No effect during raids (so perhaps dependent on having fortifications for siege?)
* Cameras will spot raiding parties - without them, they have a chance to sneak past your guarding party and damage your safehouse
* Bomb shelter - bombers won't cause damage to liberals, only resources and infrastructure
How this would affect attacks by CCS, rednecks, agents or mercenaries, I haven't thought about yet. Apart from the hillbilly raid, these are covert operations and as they don't want to draw attention, a prolonged siege isn't an option for them.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, as usual, I'll do my best to help with creating this new system, but unfortunately, I'm still stuck in a certain conservative organization for a couple of months...