Just as the Thargoid War mostly (though of course, not entirely) removed AX CGs from the game, it's certainly possible that Frontier are trying to make trade/bounty/war CGs similarly obsolete with PP2 by providing a better alternative for "do stuff -> get results". And Frontier have certainly not held many CGs at all for the last two years and might be glad to be able to stop.
But I don't see why PP2 would be specifically incompatible with CGs - they can be held in neutral systems, or on the other side have an inter-power war as the conflict, just as now.
CGs always just seemed like a kludge.. players wanted a "bigger thing" to participate in (which, in a game pitched like Elite, makes me eyebrow, but anyway...)... so we got CGs.
Tldr; cgs are an unnecessary manual inject into a game which should lean into its procedural generation.
Sure, they tied the outcomes to one- shot things like new stations or narrative outcomes... but at least for... i dunno... "first-gen" CGs, the activities were indistinct from standard game activities, which is the draw i never understood especially in the context of the broader BGS; why do something that railroads you into repeating a single activity ad-nausem with comparable reward to any standard activity... when you could simply do the same thing, with more diversity and generally more reward?
So then we started getting things like one- shot modules and stuff. Which begs the question; what were tech brokers and engineers for again? I'll come back to this at the end.
Then things like trade CGs got a buff to profit margins, which is a fairly last- resort incentive... but anyway...
Then we got all the new BGS mechanics, but things like war CGs stuck around with "bond counting" which definitely got gamed where cz locations weren't favourable and parallel wars existed.
Thargoid War made things a bit more interesting and diverse, but it's failing was really around balance, and turning things like tissue sampling into pure quantity based grinds.
The biggest issue with CGs is it bound FD to a manual- inject role within a procedural universe, which is always a recipe for disaster... because you're fighting against your own creations to draw players away to different activities, which is just bad design.
If your procedural mechanics are good, lean into them... make that the focus of the activity and surface things that embrace it, not fight it.
CGs would be much better done as a player-inject, putting down a sum of money to "incentivise" player activity through a 10-20% addition to payouts for particular activities done, maybe in support of a faction for some BGS effect. In that way, this disperses these opportunities across the galaxy, and gives players a much greater range of time/ resource- constrainted activities.
Meanwhile, FD do the big, infrequent injects. Big galaxy- changing events, or even just ramping up particular random occurrences to be more common and drive player activity interest in the area.
As for those one- shot rewards, usually that sort of thing would be redily available in some sort of major event, and then available in substantially slower time by doing lots of interaction with the relevant engineer or techbroker, as the relevant "gold rush" event dries up.
