Obviously the ultimate goal is to come out the winner in any case, but 1. having a clear and concise plan of action is paramount and 2. having the ability to adapt that plan to the ebb and flow of the the engagement is just as important.

In most cases the acre exchange between the bottom is useless and can carry on unnecessarily long. Small things like being observant to how well they are army in/out, in some cases, can be enough of an advantage - so long as you capitalize on the opportunity presented.
Unless you have provinces who are in a position to protect themselves sufficiently enough as to enable them the luxury of massacres, you run the risk of being land locked.
Your situation mirrors the last war I participated in in respect to the ratio of attacks:gains. Our opposition was like yourself (I believe they were able to top our total attacks by 40% odd) however we were always in the lead because we were not fixed on the idea of deep chaining. Often times a semi chain is more effective insomuch that you make far more lasting NW damage.
Also, controlling the oppositions economy should be a top priority for anyone in any given war.

Coming back to my first point though, I'd say (based on what you have said) your KD needs to consolidate it's power within. There is nothing more crippling to a kingdom than dissent.

Without going on and on, the point is there is far more that one can do in an engagement than chaining. To my mind, chaining really only makes up a small (but relatively significant) part of the whole.