# How big is The War Z's map?

So we now know that The War Z only has one map, despite Hammerpoint having initially advertised multiple maps of between 100 and 400 square kilometres each. That's fine, a misunderstanding that's been corrected. The store page now correctly lists just one map, Colorado, though Hammerpoint still claim that it's 100 square kilometres in area. It certainly doesn't *feel* that big, so it's probably wise to check.

Would you like to know how big The War Z's map really is? 50 square kilometres? 75 square kilometres?

Around 10 square kilometres.

Roughly. Certainly nowhere close to 100 square kilometres. Let me show you my workings, which involve crouching next to some trees with a stopwatch. Here's an overview of The War Z's Colorado map.

There's no scale to work with here, so instead I measured the time it took to walk between two grid lines, which turns out to be three minutes and thirty seconds. This is useless without knowing the walking pace of a War Z character however, so in order to estimate *that* I lay prone and used my character to measure the distance between two trees. To do this I had to assume my character's height to be that of the average American male, 5'10". I could fit nine of him between those trees. It was very dark.

Knowing the distance between the two trees to be 52.5 feet, or 16 metres, I used the time it took to walk between the trees (11.6s) to get The War Z's walking pace of 1.38m/s (which is a little faster than typical human walking speed, but there are zombies, so that makes sense).

With the speed and time recorded, it's possible to measure the distance between grid lines as 289.8m. This gives every grid square on the Colorado map an area of 83,984 square metres, or 0.083984 square kilometres. All we have to do now is add up the number of squares on the map. Of course, a huge chunk of the map isn't actually playable, so I'll mark the area we're measuring in red. This is something, I'm beginning to think, Hammerpoint didn't do.

That's 116 squares, which gives us a total of 9.7417 square kilometres.

There are margins of error of course. The height of the character throws things out of whack considerably, but not enough to get even close to a 100 square kilometre result: if we'd assumed each character was seven feet tall that would give the map an area of around 14 square kilometres. If you count every square on the map, accessible or not, you'd still only get 21.5 square kilometres. If you assumed that walking pace was something much faster, say 6mph, the map size goes up to 35-40 square kilometres. Without a reliable standard it's difficult to come up with an exact result. But 100 square kilometres isn't it.

This is why developers don't like to talk about their maps using real-world scales — you can shrink or contract a game universe by changing the relative length of a metre stick, or by claiming that the game takes place in a dimension that's identical to ours only everything is double-sized, even players. Measurements of map size hardly matter either, if a map is sufficiently large or appropriately detailed, its borders shouldn't concern players. The Colorado map perhaps *represents* as big a chunk as Hammerpoint claim, but it's not practically that large.

Or hey, maybe I counted wrong.

Hammerpoint are currently testing their next map, California, which they claim to be 420 square kilometres in area.

Sort byHattoff1 Year agoLet me attempt to clear the air for anyone interested in what may have went wrong at the game company, or is having trouble following the math in the article...

First off, it is important to know the difference between "km squared" and "square km".

"square km" refers to the total surface area. For example: an area that is 100 square km has the surface area of 100 square km, but has the dimensions of 10 km x 10 km.

"km squared" / "km^2" refers to the dimensions of an area. For example: an area that is 100 km squared is actually 10,000 square km in surface area, but has the dimensions of 100 km x 100 km.

Now that we have that cleared up... this article has found that the actual size of the map is about 9.7 square km.

Note: I am going to round numbers...

The article tells us that the distance between grid lines is roughly 300 meters. Meaning that each grid 'square' has a surface area of 90,000 square meters (300 meters x 300 meters) / a surface area of 0.09 square km (0.3 km x 0.3 km).

Assuming that their count of 116 total squares is close to accurate, 116 squares * 0.09 km of surface area per square = 10.44 square km of total surface area. This means that the map has the dimension of 3.4 km x 3.4 km, but is 10.44 square km.

Personally I think that the company made the mistake of thinking that their 10 square km map was actually a 10 km squared map... This would lead the them thinking that it was was 10 km x 10 km rather than the actual 3.4 km x 3.4 km size... leading to their assumption that the map was actually a 100 square km map.

If this is true... their California map isn't actually 420 square km in surface area... but actually 20.5 square km in surface area, meaning it would be 4.5 km x 4.5 km in dimension.

TL;DR: This article is correct given the data provided; "square km" is different from "km squared"

VR891 Year agoThis might be a dumb question, but if you measure lenght by the time it takes to walk from place a to place b, wouldn't the differences in the terrain (like; just walking on straight ground or walking up or down hill) affect the result?

I DO realize that you made a 'distance model', probably on solid, straight ground, but what I mean is; wouldn't hills, hillocks and pits actually make the overall map SMALLER in square mile's?

I'm probably wrong as hell with this one, but just a

thought..:)

..And sorry for grammar error's, if I had them, English is not my own language:P

TheDevilsTeardrop1 Year agoGood thinking, but it would result in the opposite. If you flattened a hill, your total metres would increase not decrease.

But again, there aren't enough discrepancies to denote a 90km² increase.

Surlywombat1 Year agoWow. Just. Wow.

Namelessone1 Year agoOkay I would like to add in my measurement it may be a little more accurate. I use ESP since hacking has become so prevalent and have found that each square on the map is 500 meters. That is using the in game coding for distance.

This is the first time I have "hacked" in a game since the days of the gameshark for the NES. It is bad when you make a game that the only real way to play it is to make it so people have to hack to compete against hackers.

And before I get flamed just know I am normally that guy at blueridge giving out free guns to help others. I only use the ESP to stay clear of others that maybe wallhacking. Yes I pick up items but I am more of a Robin Hood if you ever played on US73/120/124/210 I am one of those people that goes hey got free snipers at X safe zone.

strucky1 Year agoI can't wait to see the 420 square kilometres of theirs.

Vetian1 Year agoSomething tells me your math is wrong...

slemon1 Year agoThis has to be the worst math ever done. Are you serious?

Line to line distance is 300m, and somehow one square covers 83 square meters?

Please go back to first grade.

Disgusting.

Can't believe they let people like you actually post articles...

Dave21231 Year ago@Hattoff

I know this is a long while ago but i had to reply to your post. I hope you were trolling but if you were it isn't helpful to mislead people. To clarify square km and km squared are exactly the same thing. You said "square km refers to the total SA." and "km squared refers to the dimensions of an area." Dimensions of an area would be given as HxW=10kmx10km which gives an area of 100km^2, which is the same as saying an area that is 100 square kilometers. Square kilometers and kilometers squared are perfect synonyms; the writer of the article is right, otherwise Titov and his team have made the same mistake as you, which is unlikely.

theselkie1 Year ago"Line to line distance is 300m, and somehow one square covers 83 square meters?

Please go back to first grade."

Line to line distance is just less than 290m, 290m squared is 84100 square meters. There are 1 million square meters in 1 square km. Ergo 84,100 square meters = 0.0841 square km. Mr Hogarty's maths is solid and you've made yourself look terribly silly on the internet.

Namelessone1 Year agoStill hate to tell you all but line to line is 500m ESP wins possible math any day of the week.

GuyWolf1 Year ago"Line to line distance is 300m, and somehow one square covers 83 square meters?"

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are European or such.

83,984 square metres = Eighty Three THOUSAND Nine hundred Eighty Four square miles.

The comma, in america, represents the Thousands mark. You probably read it as a decimal

GuyWolf1 Year agoMetres*

mathishard1 Year ago@slemon are you serious right now...? I really hope not because if so, you're not only dumb but also an ass. His math is sound. 0.083984 sq km is not 83 sq meters. You can't just multiply sq kilometers by 1000 and get meters. They're SQUARED. Therefore you have to multiply it by 1000 SQUARED. 0.083984 * 1000 *1000 = 83,984 sq meters. Looks like someone else needs to go back to grade school. :)

Ardorick1 Year ago@slemon

Are you dumb ? He said the distance between lines is 289.8 m. So 83,984 square metres is precisely right according to his math. Im not saying he is right because the way he got the info is sketchy at best, but his math is correct.

Can't believe they let people like you actually comment articles...

Zirk1 Year ago@Namelessone

Even if it was 500 meters between grid lines, the map still isn't even close to being 100 square kilometers.

drunksuck1 Year agoYour math is off a bit :

There are a thousand meters in a kilometer so each grid is roughly 83 kilometers squared

not 0.083984 that would be a megameter

here is a link to a converter to check http://www.unitconverters.net/

other then that one error all the math checks out just gotta bump over the decimal place a bit

Zirk1 Year ago@drunksuck

Your math is off a bit.

There are a 1,000 meters in 1 kilometer.

There are 1,000,000 square meters in 1 square kilometer.

Your converter isn't taking into account the squared units, the author did all of their math correct.

Zirk1 Year ago@drunksuck

Your math is off a bit.

There are a 1,000 meters in 1 kilometer.

There are 1,000,000 square meters in 1 square kilometer.

Your converter isn't taking into account the squared units, the author did all of their math correct.

Zirk1 Year agoHmm refreshing the page causes my previous comment to get posted again.

Myrdhale1 Year ago@Namelessone

Going by your value for the grid lines; (500*500) = 250000 sq.m / (1000*1000) = 0.25 sq.km per grid box.

0.25 sq.m * 116 grid boxes = 29 sq.km of map. This is going by hacked values; and even if you double the values, you still don't get 100 square kilometers. Titov is a lying bitch.

Tapion8171 Year agoYou could have just extracted the 3Dmodel from the files and measure it in a 3D application such as Maya or 3dsMax.

casshern091 Year agoWell written mate. I shall be including this in my article for Push-Start.co.uk. Nice to see people not letting these scum bags get away with anything. *brofist*

JoeZ1 Year agoIn response on all the math discussion above - you guys all realize this confusion is down to decimal points using different symbols (comma and full stop) in different countries, right?

Yanks & Brits and many others use comma to note every third order of magnitude (or ever "times a thousand), whereas in many countries (google it) a comma denotes a decimal point (something the aforementioned Yanks & Brits use full stops for). In this case, the poster named slemon failed to realize this difference and caused a bit of a ruckus. In the future, it might be better to keep in mind from what country the person writing the numbers come from - and of course common sense, like if you see multiple commas in a single number, the comma isn't being used to denote decimals (regardless of national style), since decimal points only occur once in every number. Also, unless the calculations are very specific, three numbers after the comma generally indicates an Anglo-American usage of the comma (ie. to denote "thousandths" as it were).

As you were.

Rcordon1 Year agoApparently it is a language issue...or stupidity issue...

http://forums.thewarz.com/showthread.php?83581-Lern-2-Math-Pl0x&p=1289390&viewfull=1#post1289390

in the case that Titov edits his post(which he is fond of doing when he screws up)

http://i45.tinypic.com/2rpwe1c.png

вфыфы1 Year ago?????