Like everything else in building a trail rig, linked suspension design will be about picking compromise points as you balance one thing against another. The more you learn about it, the more you find out what the things are involved in the compromises. THAT'S why you have to do a lot of homework on the topic and THAT'S why there's no simple "answer" as to how you do this. There are infinite ways to do it and either you spend a lot of time learning about the choices or else you take a stab at it with no idea, and then have no idea what to do next when the outcome is less than expected.
Here are some of the compromise balances that you have to consider:
1) Ease of construction vs. obtaining the geometry that you design.
This is one of the toughest, because to some degree the positions of pre-existing parts like frame rails, drive shafts, exhaust and the oil pan all tell you where links can and cannot go. On the one hand, you can put links where they'll fit and on the other, you can put them where you want (based on the link calculations) but then you have to do extensive modifications to the other systems to make space.
2) Triangulated geometry vs. ground clearance/ride height
On the one hand, it would be nice to make nice wide based triangles with links because this is what offers the most lateral stability and strength, but on the other hand, there's no good point in the center of the vehicle or the center of the axle onto which these triangle points can end in link mounts. You have to add those if you want them in the form of cross members and axle trusses. If you build in crossmembers, they're probably going to drop your ground clearance. If you add an axle truss, it'll affect the ride travel on the axle by taking up space between the axle and chassis. In the front, a well triangulated 4-link system can interfere with the oil pan so that the vehicle will have to sit taller. Another option is to do a 3 link/panhard front system to clear the oil pan (instead of a double triangulated 4 link) and this also gives you the option to run non-hydraulic steering, but the cost is a different geometric motion than the rear, with potentially more roll and bump steer.
3) Link length vs. wheel recession.
Short steeply angled links mean that for the suspension to go into up-travel, it also has to swing in a sort of "out-travel". This means that for the front wheel to take a bump over a rock, it has to cycle forward and up, directly AGAINST the force of the rock against the tire. In many ways, it's preferable for a wheel to "recess" as it goes up, i.e., for the wheel to go up and BACK as it absorbs the shock of hitting the rock. A linked suspension in which the front lower link sits perfectly horizontal at ride height would have the wheel actually go straight up and slightly recess, but a link that flat means that the belly is probably too low. It's as low as the axle! Links that angle down, but are longer will have a shallower angle and less "out-travel" (I had to make up that term since I can't find an accepted opposite word for "wheel recession"). However longer links are easier to bend when you come down on a rock that hits the link square in the middle.
These are just a few considerations that show how compromises play into a link design. You have to make choices between what's easy to build and what you believe to be ideally suited for your application.
It's not all about finding a target range for the anti-squat and jerking with the numbers till you find a design that gives you those numbers because when you're done with that, you still have to build it and your build has to meet a budget and has to stand up to the trail abuse that you're going to give it.
I'm 2 years into the build pictured below, and the strong majority of that time so far was spent on suspension... in fact, I'm still working on it!
