ok this time i have come up with a really good question, i promise :)

[gabzpiano]

Why is it that swords are better at tanking damage than cavalry?
 So you can try this in the simulator, in the first few rounds of battle when your front line is taking damage from enemy archers and/or siege engines you lose less points if you have just swords in the front line without cavalry, even though your swords are supposed to have less 'hit points to cost ratio' in the flanks and your cavalry is supposed to have more 'hit points to cost ratio' in the flanks.
also at every stage of the game cavalry and swordsmen always have the same 'hit points to cost ratio' supposedly. and the only thing that is supposed to affect that is their formation bonuses or formation penalties. but if that were true the most efficient front line for tanking damage would be cavalry in the flanks and swords in the center.. but what actually is the best front line for tanking damage is only swords.

[Angela]

Hi, gabzpiano. As a unit type, cavalry has more hit points than swordsmen, which allows the cavalry units to suffer more damages in battle and fight for more rounds. The battle type, defending army composition (type and number), military researches and other bonuses, as well as the chosen formation affect the amount of inflicted damages. Can you send a battle (date and time) in which you've noted the example you described above?

[gabzpiano]

but the problem even exists with light cavalry and guardians, where guardians have more hit points than cavalry. i have taken into account all of the factors... should probably ask a knowledgeable developer, no offense. thanks for your time