Let us know if you find something that works. I've given up on the 200. The 100 and 400 are beautiful films in 35mm, and I actually like the grain. But the w/ the 200, nothing I've tried will give shadow detail, and it's so much easier to shoot the other 2 films.
I do not know Foma 200 in 135, but I've gone back to shooting Foma 200 in 120 in earnest. With the newest batches, any issues with hairline parallel scratches I had experienced since about 2019 have now largely gone. It is an absolutely stunning film, with (as someone else in the thread found) a much longer linear portion of the exposure/density function than the 100 and 400, I've found. Not to mention the spectral response which is quite traditional (think old Tri-X) and extremely different from Foma 400, which is strongly red-sensitive and which I find needs the right scene and colour distribution to work.
Here's a link to a comparison between Trix and Foma200 in 35mm by someone who is well known in this forum (sadly, he had to delete his account following less than stellar treatment by some of the armchair photographers in here)
(actual comparison starts 3:33)
Notice that he uses D76 exclusively for his tests. I (personally, so based on my metering choices and less so on my development choices) have not found any special issues with blocked shadows. However, I try to strictly follow the manufacturer's recommendations and stick to the developers they tested, mainly Fomadon Excel and Fomadon LQN and have not had problems of note. How do you meter and which developer have you tried? I'd get a couple of rolls and a bottle of Fomadon LQN and see how you get on.
It may be that I actually don't like the look of the 200. Every example on the web looks different, and none of them look like my prints.
I sympathise with the frustration, but may I ask why you'd expect other people's examples to look like your prints? Your prints are the effect of a number of non linear transformations of the signal recorded on the negative onto the paper, a function of chosen exposure, development, variance in measurement errors, variance in operator errors, light source, paper response and much more. Other people, including those who bother to post examples or youtube videos online to try to offer some real help to the community, will have applied their own set of (voluntary+involuntary) transformations. I haven't personally found other people's experiences with film extremely useful (unless there are some elements of scientific reproducibility, like in the series of videos by the Naked Photographer suggested above) so I only trust my own judgement of a film in my own chain.
