Does it have to be a remote location? Could you disguise this meeting as a trade fair? I also think that the roles sleeper agents play in society would affect available options.

@Otkin The remote location was my assumption but not strictly necessary, I suppose. Do note that I am not asking for how to disguise their gathering, but for a reason for the sleeper agents to gather up in the first place. The roles the agents would play would be simple - they would just have rooted in their villages and have taken up simple jobs like baker's apprentice or lumberjack. They just need to be in the right place at the right time to do some sabotage, once the invasion date arrives.

Sorry, somehow I misread your question. Could you elaborate a bit on the organisational structure? Also, do explosives exist in the country being invaded (or can they be manufactured locally without attracting attention)? One of the reasons to gather could be to distribute explosives (or military-grade weapons [both would be fitting reasons, for example, in a Chinese medieval setting]) which are normally government-controlled.

@Otkin I've added some of the explosive details. I thought of bomb distribution but wondered why many of the agents would show up at once, rather than trickle in one at a time. --- Organisational structure... I had not given it much thought. The nature of sleeper agents is that they do not arouse suspicion so they would all have to be on the lowest level of the hierarchy lest they need to send out many commands themselves. The instructions ultimately arrive from the foreign country, I suppose regional coordination might still be necessary? Not sure.

As we have both seen, today my head does not work properly. If you are looking for organisational reasons for gatherings (this is how I interpret your question) you need to come up with the structure and communication methods first. I will try to think about your question a bit more when my brain returns to proper functioning. I do not want to cause more misunderstandings.

This is very vague. The question cannot be about the choices of the agents or it's off-topic. That means a systemic reason, and you've given us nothing to work with (no description of the spy organization, no details about the demographics or politics, just a few vague goals about later actions). Worse, even though you protest that this isn't about plot, plot is not the deciding factor. The reason the "too story-based" VTC reason exists is because you're inviting us to come up with an aspect of the story - not help you build the spy network. (continued)

The difference is that a story-based question is looking for an explanation that's only valid for this one circumstance or instance in the story. A worldbuilding question would be valid for any group of spies/sabotuers. For example, explosives are a bit difficult to hide for long periods of time, so having all the spies gather to aquire explosives (or some other difficult-to-hide and problematic-to-explain substance or equipment) would be an answer - because it would be a systemic function of the spy service and not simply a one-off element of the story. So, we need systemic details.

@JoinJBHonCodidact I will add more systemic details that I can think of. I am deliberately avoiding adding temporary circumstances because that would tie this gathering too closely into a story plot. My contention (although I think we agree on this) is that while I need the gathering to serve the plot, the reason for the gathering is not itself going to be the plot. I only need the answer for plot in the sense that every question on this site is ultimately going to serve the plots of the stories they are about.

As I said, plot isn't the condition. Worldbuilding is devloping and consistently using rules and systems for a world wherein an infinite number of stories can be told. Storybuilding is developing a single instance of using those rules and systems. You need the former. The more you depend on the later, the more off-topic the question becomes. The reasons respondents give you must be independent of any story, or the question is off-topic.

@JoinJBHonCodidact Frankly, we agree on everything. I think I will strip the word "plot" from the question body because that has given the wrong impression.

The general staff of the invading army must have planned, that is, plotted how the invasion was supposed to work. That's what a general staff does. In this plan, or plot, they obviously must have found some use for their fifth column. That use may involve actions which require quite a few of the traitorous felons to gather in one place. What specifically those action are it is of course known only to the master planner, or plotter, of the dastardly invaders.

@AlexP I don't know if I am reading you right, but assuming we have rational generals whose only plot is to have the most efficient possible invasion, I don't think that one can reasonably argue that truly anything goes and that the reason is whatever I want it to be.

Having the most efficient possible invasion is a goal. How to achieve that goal is a plan. The general outlines of the plan, as well as the detailed details of the plan, all depend on the specific political, social, economic, geographical, military and so on conditions. As you are the author writing the story, you can invent any such conditions in order to justify any particular element of the plan that you want. I can think off-hand of half a dozen different activities which would require many of the despicable traitors to gather at one place, and then make up reasons to justify them.

@AlexP I would appreciate your thoughts here

I don't understand the sabotage actions of the sleeper agents. Destroying bridges and blocking passes are typical actions taken by defender, to stop or delay an invading army. What advantage is Hamia hoping to get if it finds bridges destroyed, and mountain passes blocked?

@Abigail It's roughly 90% of strategic bridges being destroyed. Keiza would have a hard time gathering and manouvering their soldiers whereas Hamia would know exactly where to go and what places to defend.

The only reasons I can see to gather all the sleeper agents are to: 1) The Annual Sleeper Agent Association dinner and holiday party, 2) To give everybody new orders, or 3) To remove them from the population...perhaps permanently (it's a trap!)

I don't see how damaging "strategic bridges" or other infrastructure will matter much in the setting chosen. Average march will still be about 30km per day (walking speed). That the army was delayed one day fording or ferrying across the Purple River won't make much difference. The invasion fleet has similar low-speed constraints and delays...especially when the wind is blowing the wrong direction.

I think that you still need to work a bit more on this idea. There are still many points missing. However, I do not agree that your question qualifies as 'too story-based' even in its original version since it asks for a reason for gatherings that is based on the organisational structure and not anything else.

See why you asked the meta-question, now }i{. Asking "why" often relates to a choice, so it's harder to make it look like it's not tied to a character/story or opinion-based. I'd have done this way : List what they need for the operation, "choose" one or more elements as if you're the meister of operation. Then ask a reality-check question on the benefits/risks to gather people to gain that element. That way, "choices" are already taken, and what's left are objective outcomes. It can therefore tell if the choice you made is believable and so adjust on "why".

@Abigail During World War II the Allies constantly bombed railroads, bridges, and other infrastructure elements. It's not just about stopping the invasion, it'a also about stopping counter-attacks and defense. Using transportation as an example, the only transportation route any invader would want intact is the one they can hold for the purpose of their invasion.

Keizer, you've done a lot of great work developing the question, but you're still asking about a circumstance as part of a story - not something related to a story-independent system. You need to remove every aspect of the story (aka, the invasion) from the question - all of it. Then you need to talk about the spy network and its hierarchy and support infrastructure. After you remove everything about the story, what is it about the spies - about the way spies do their job - that would require this meeting?

@JoinJBHonCodidact I do not know if I can reasonably strip out reference to the invasion. That's the whole reason this spy network exists; it is ultimately a temporary affair. Surely there's ways to ask about temporary things on this site?

@JoinJBHonCodidact One thing I have now also done is move the invasion to the conditional tense.

@KeizerHarm Keizer, the invasion is the reason the spies are there - but it's not the reason the spy organization exists. It's the spy organization that we can help you build. So long as the invasion is part of the question, you have a story-based question because it allows reasons that are unique to the invasion. From the [help/on-topic], we help you build worlds, not stories. It feels like you're trying to sneak a story-based question through the rules.

@JoinJBHonCodidact What do you know, I have just opened a meta discussion about that exact point! To sum my stance up, I think that because one can discuss weapon effectiveness in the generic, rather than through the lenze of any single fight (which comes with its own unique circumstances and is governed by chance); we should also be able to discuss invasion strategy effectiveness in the generic, and not narrowed down to the circumstances of any specific story.

@JoinJBHonCodidact Consider adding your thoughts to the discussion here: worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/8509/…