The math is actually rather simple. The offsets are still a percentage of the texture canvas, whether you're using planar or standard mapping. So if you want to span a single texture across two equally sized faces, the offsets will be .25 and -.25, always. If you want to span it across three, it's going to be .333, 0, and -.333. Etc. Of course, for unequally sized faces, the actual calculations get a little more complicated, but the principle never changes.
The only relevant difference between planar and standard mapping is in calculating how the repeats in order to cover the whole object. And it's a very slight difference at that.
For planar, first you need the size of the entire object, or group of objects you need to cover. Then take the reciprocal of that number, and you've got your repeats per meter. For example, to cover a 20-meter object once, the repeats per meter would be .05. From there, it's just a simple matter of percentages to determine all the offsets.
For standard mapping, it's basically the same, except you need to apply the percentages twice: once to determine the repeats per face for each part, and then a second time to calculate the offsets.
If you'd rather not do the math yourself, there are plenty of scripted solutions on the market that can make it a bit quicker. TexFix and TextureAlign are two that I have. There are many more.
I'd also recommend you apply a test pattern grid to your surfaces, to make it really easy to see how the numbers fall. In the one I use (which I made available for free at
/109/45/214824/1.html), each gray square is exactly 1% of the texture. Each numbered block along with its neighboring empty block, contain 10 squares, or 10% of the total texture width. This makes it really easy to see at a glance precisely how close to alignment your offsets are.