Fans of "geeky" wargames — very getailed games on very obscure topics— would argue that at least they serve a serious purpose, thus making them a worthwhile pastime. What purpose? A hands-on study of military history or military art/science, of course.

B. H. Liddell Hart (a well-known military historian, for those who don't know) said war is essentially survival on a grand, concentrated scale. To study war is to study what it takes to survive and succeed in life. The principles can be applied to any competitive endeavor--and to non-competitive endeavors as well. So, there are many businessmen and people in other fields who regard war as a worthwhile, inspirational study.

But when you just read books about war, all you get is a narrative, accompanied by a few maps. You're detached from all the motion, all the constant decision making and revision of plans. A wargame can--to some degree--enable you to experience parts of what real-life military commanders experience. Basically, a wargame is a military-history book remade into a dynamic, participatory form.

In contrast, many of the popular, marketable games (non-wargames) have little redeeming value. They're for amusement or entertainment, pure and simple. They're vehicles for killing time on a rainy day, and nothing more. Or in some cases, they're vehicles for escapism (e.g., AD&D, which enables nerdy, oversensitive misfits to spend vast amounts of time pretending they're living a heroic, though cartoonish, life).

I agree that specialized wargames--and maybe even wargames in general -- are not widely marketable. But I think that says less about the "geekiness" of wargamers than it does about the mediocrity of John Q. Public. IMHO, one should strive for excellence in his life--even in his hobby life.

(And just for the record, I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about the AD&D remarks above. With the proper approach and attitude, one can find something worthwhile in AD&D or anything--and achieve excellence there as well as anywhere.)