Let's go back a step or two and think about what is going on ...
(a) forget about engine failures for the moment.
Imagine that you are flying along on a nice summer's afternoon minding your own business and enjoying the view.
What happens if you set up a roll angle by using some aileron input ? You start slipping into the low wing and set up a yawing moment in that direction. If you don't do anything to stop it happening .. you will start turning as well.
Tuck that away in the mind for later on ...
(b) now, let's think about an engine failure.
You are flying along still minding your own business and enjoying the view and one engine goes quiet on you.
First off you note the yawing moment's causing a turn (important to keep in mind that the aeroplane wants to turn toward the failed engine) .. so you apply some rudder input toward the operating engine(s) to re-acquire the original heading and increase the throttle setting somewhat to minimise the IAS loss. With any sort of good fortune and a bit of juggling of controls and throttles, you hope to settle down to a reduced IAS, constant heading flightpath.
For the exercise, let's consider that you are maintaining wings level.
Now, if you are at a higher IAS, you only need comparatively little rudder deflection.
However, at a lower IAS you needed comparatively more rudder deflection. Indeed, if you are in a situation where the IAS is reducing due to the thrust capability's being a little on the low side, then, progressively, you will be increasing the rudder input to maintain heading.
[We are playing with something approximating the static Vmca exercise here - a bit like the usual endorsement demonstration].
If you end up with full thrust on the operating engine(s) but the IAS continues to reduce, eventually you will get to the stage where you no longer can maintain the heading.
Now, what can you do ?
(i) descend for IAS control - fine. (This is much the same as reducing thrust .. but that means you are going to descend as well so the situation is much the same)
(ii) continue slowing until you lose control - not a good idea so let's not go there
(iii) re-read (a) and play with bank angle.
- if we bank into the dead engine we make things worse as the bank causes a yawing moment which wants to see the aircraft turning into the dead engine (which was the original problem just made worse) - not a good idea so let's cancel that idea
- if we bank into the operating engine(s) the the yawing moment associated with the bank wants to see the aircraft turn toward the operating engine(s) which means that we can reduce the rudder input a little or tolerate a further slight reduction in IAS. Is this not a useful thing to do ?
The inclined lift vector is important in setting up this yawing moment via lateral acceleration and sideslip.
When we come to looking at gross weight (in level flight) the heavier aircraft (for the same bank angle) will generate a slightly higher lateral accelerating force and a bit more sideslip (for the same IAS) which normally should see a slight increase in the yawing moment which, in turn, should see a benefit for the rudder requirement.
Now it becomes pretty obvious (?) that more bank angle results in more lateral acceleration and sideslip and there exists the potential to reduce the Vmc figure even more if we use a larger bank angle. However, too much sideslip is a good way to visit spins and such so we need to keep a happy balance - hence a limit on how much bank may be used for certification.
Which, I guess, is a long-winded way of saying yes ...