This is not an attempt to talk you (or anyone else) out of playing those bunkers because I know lots of teams will and that's fine. Given the typical skill levels exhibited in the lower divisions a defensive strategy is frequently effective because it is less demanding of the individual players and puts the other team in the position of needing to be demonstrably better all around--or else points devolve into two defensive-oriented squads hosing away at each other hoping to shoot somebody before they get shot. [And on this basis alone the move to raise the ROF will undoubtedly retard the development of some percentage of lower div players.]
My interest here is in discussing why dependence on the MTs is a tactical error, all things otherwise being equal. The attached diagram of the layout identifies the MTs and Home with red. Other likely breakout primaries are marked with yellow and the same side of the field transition bunkers are marked with green. The colors are intended for quick reference and to help visualize coming points. Red indicates primary spots taken in a common breakout using the MTs. Yellow indicates other primary options that are initially neutral but become defensive positions if the opponent is forcing the action. Early on green represents a first stage offensive push.
In any breakout using the pair of MTs as primaries the likelihood is the MT players will initially be inside the shooting zone and/or shifting to positions similar to B & I shown on the laning post diagram of the layout. This will tend to push both wire players to a limited number of primary options and on the D-side in particular will consistently expose that player to running the same lanes over and over. (On this layout that outcome is hard to avoid regardless but is particularly risky when playing both MTs.) The only tactical discretion that remains is whether the Home shooter has a specific rotation to make or is simply looking to fill should one wire or the other be eliminated. Among other things this becomes extremely predictable. Even the most aggressive breakout option utilising both MTs will seldom, if ever, push more than two players out to a wire. The immediate impact is twofold; basic breakouts employing the two towers put a premium on your laning for effect (as failure gives up the wide gun as often as not) and maximizes the impact of any wide rotation losses you take (because there is no one left to fill the spot.)
Once the breakout is accomplished there are only two options moving into the mid-game transition; Home player makes a pre-planned rotation to one wire or the other, or, Home player waits to fill if/when a wire player is eliminated. In the first case one wire player at least gains support but conversely the other wire is isolated. And eliminations of the wire players give up both angles and open the field deep into the defensive team's side of the field with only the inside guns of the MTs (and possibly Home) to contest control. Additionally wide eliminations without immediate attempts to fill put the defensive team at risk of pressure up the middle of the field.
Of course eliminations off the break will change the dynamics of how a point plays out but my basic point stands. Playing both the MTs is fundamentally a defensive game plan that puts extra pressure on your wings to stay alive and offers them little when its time to shift to offense. Do the MTs have a role on this layout? Yes. Should they be relied on or figure prominently in any game plan? No.
There's plenty more to all this but as usual I'm going long. If there are any specific questions don't hesitate to ask and I won't hesitate to try and answer.