We have not received permission from Arya_Yeshe to share the quoted post.
That brings up a good point. What if BHs did in fact come after them? What if when you're deep enough into the bandit route, you get flagged against BHs and they see you on their map.
It would give more work to BHs and justify their existence even more. The bandits would have a risk related to their attacks, cause now they'd be hunted if they're successful (which would also decrease the potential abuse of the bandit system).
This depends on the game's design core for that. We don't know enough to say if it would work, but that's like a Tier 4 consideration so it shouldn't take priority over lower ones.
Example: This is the consideration 'hierarchy/pyramid' in Elite Dangerous.
Tier 1: Without some threat to trade hauling, there is no risk-reward. A player must be attackable while hauling.
Tier 2: Without some threat to attacking traders, there is no risk-reward, a successful pirate must build up some negative status or be restricted to a particular area to avoid this.
Tier 3: Without some specific resource deterrent to the attacker, players will manipulate the system by successfully attacking Traders and then letting others defeat them to claim the bounties.
Tier 4: Without some built up negative to the Bounty Hunters, there will be no players willing to be pirates long-term.
Tier 5: Without some limit to the positive effects of Bounty Hunting (or a strong negative effect for Piracy), players will manipulate the 'Nodes' system of that game by building up bounties on alts and then having Node-allied forces claim those bounties.
Bandit Route would end up more similar to their solution for Tier 4, which is that the Anarchy Factions in the 'Node' build up hostility toward the Bounty Hunter. In this case it would be 'Bounty Hunters building up hostility toward Bandits', by your suggestion. They'd be trackable at minimum, attackable without penalty at 'Maximum', without actually needing to be Red. They would just have a bounty on them.
The failpoint would probably be 'what does the Bandit lose, in order for the Bounty Hunter to get the reward'.
In Elite, you lose cash equal to your Bounty when you are finally taken down. Someone had to spend time earning that, or that character is 'basically lost' unless someone puts in all the time after.
In Ashes, I don't think it would be fair for a Bandit to lose gear or similar because they got a high bounty and were good at raiding caravans, but that would be the only equivalent that people wouldn't 'just disregard. Except ofc Arya's usual suggestion of 'Off to the gulag with you!' for that character, which I tentatively support.
90% of the problems inherent in open world games that try to simulate RL economies and interactions come from the fact that 'hardened criminals' mostly get to just keep going, all the way to the point where the only solution to them is to grief THEM and then you're in trouble.
I don't think the currently known (what little there is) design core for Ashes would really 'support' the idea of Bounty Hunters going after Bandit Raider players without a massive increase/commitment to the Bandit side's loss.