Yes, what Genghis said!
Maybe you are confusing 'manoeuvrability' with 'controllability'.
In this context, I think of 'manoeuvrability' as 'rate of yaw' (or pitch or roll) and 'controllability' as 'control deflection required'.
With an engine failure, you are not trying to manoeuvre around the yaw axis, you are trying to control (prevent) yaw.
In other words, you are not concerned with the achievable rate of yaw, but with the rudder deflection required to prevent yaw.
The forward CG gives a longer arm on which the rudder can act, so less rudder deflection will be needed to provide the required force to oppose the yaw when compared to that required with an aft CG.
Less rudder deflection means lighter foot-forces, so this is described as being 'easier'.
Less rudder deflection also means a lower Vmc, which is normally a good thing.
As you can tell, I am only a line-pilot and not a flight-test engineer or test-pilot!